CHAPTER 7.  CVISN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

 

 

            Improved customer satisfaction is key to the success of CVISN.  For CVISN to lead to more widespread deployment of the demonstrated technologies and operating procedures, its customers must value the incremental benefits they experience more highly than the incremental costs they bear.

 

            Customers or users of CVISN technologies include independent and company drivers; motor carrier operators; state transportation and CVO administrators; law enforcement, highway, and public safety personnel; and the businesses and industries that engage the services of motor carriers.

 

            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, and surveys and focus groups involving state inspectors and law enforcement personnel.  Originally, a separate motor carrier survey was planned, to quantify the benefits of electronic credentialing for motor carriers.  However, at the time this study was scheduled, there were not enough carriers with experience in electronic credentialing to constitute a valid study population.

 

            Table 7-1 shows the customer groups who were surveyed to determine their experiences in using CVISN technologies and their satisfaction with those technologies.  Shippers/receivers and the general public are also recognized as stakeholders in CVO.  Benefits to each are discussed indirectly in Chapter 8 on benefit/cost analysis, but direct measures of the satisfaction of these customer groups were beyond the scope of this evaluation.

 

Table 7-1.    General Topics Covered in Surveys and Other Evaluations of Customer Satisfaction

 

Customer Group	Survey Topics Relating to
	Electronic Credentialing	Roadside Inspections/Enforcement
Motor Carriers	· Experience with credentialing · Current credentialing procedures · Awareness and use of electronic credentialing · Opinions about electronic credentialing · Likelihood of using electronic credentialing	· Experience with roadside inspections · Current inspection procedures · Awareness of electronic screening · Opinions about electronic screening
Drivers	· Likelihood of owner-operators to enroll in electronic credentialing	· Opinions about roadside enforcement · Likelihood of owner-operators to enroll in electronic credentialing
State CVO Administrators	· Institutional issues and benefits	· Institutional issues and benefits
State CVO Inspectors		· Inspection systems in use · Satisfaction with equipment · Perceived benefits

 

            Section 7.1 presents a summary of the objectives and methods used.  Section 7.2 summarizes the findings and details the results of the various customer satisfaction measures.  Appendices C.1 through C.6 contain data tables and supporting documentation related to customer satisfaction.

 

 

7.1             Customer Satisfaction Technical Approach

 

Motor Carrier Survey Approach

 

            In planning to appraise customer satisfaction associated with CVISN initiatives, the original plans[1]included a baseline national motor carrier survey (BNMCS), intended

 

·        to collect baseline information[2]concerning the relevant behaviors, awareness, and attitudes[3]of motor carriers;

 

·        to identify the incentives and barriers to more widespread deployment of CVISN‑type initiatives across the country;  and

 

·        to aid potentially in designing subsequent surveys of motor carriers on other topics (such as credentials administration).

 

            We examined several existing databases that were relevant either to the substance of the enquiry or to the methods that might be used to survey motor carriers, and concluded that no existing study met the objectives of the proposed baseline survey.

 

            However, the progress of CVISN deployment has been slowed by a variety of factors, which has limited the ability to monitor, within the evaluation timeframe, the experience of a critical mass of motor carriers affected directly by the new initiatives.  As a result, the objectives and value of this survey have changed somewhat to reflect this slow deployment progress.  This survey provides a picture, as of mid-2000, of the awareness, attitudes, and experience of motor carriers concerning CVISN-type initiatives generally.  To some extent, the survey responses will be colored by on the ongoing CVISN model deployment:  it may be expected to have affected awareness positively (albeit not necessarily to a significant degree), and some respondent firms may well have directly experienced innovations that have been funded in part through the CVISN program.

 

            We designed a mail survey of carriers to be representative of the trucking industry throughout the contiguous 48 states.  The sample was a stratified random one, selected from the mid-1999 records of firms in the federal government’s MCMIS Census database.  Stratification was used both to compensate for the highly skewed distribution of firms in the industry by size, and to place emphasis on firms operating in the states where CVISN deployment was most highly advanced.  Compared to a simple random sample of all firms, 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.

 

            Experience with the methodologically most closely analogous survey of carriers – one conducted in 1996 by the ATA Foundation [4]– suggested that (1) the response rate was likely to vary inversely with the size of the firm, and (2) in larger firms, obtaining authoritative answers about both credentialing and roadside inspection matters might well involve consulting different employees.  To achieve a target sample size of 150 substantially complete responses would require an issued sample of approximately 1,500 firms.

 

            In practice, only 116 responses were received from this issued sample.  In particular, the response rate from larger firms was disappointing by comparison with that achieved by the ATA Foundation survey. [5] A second sample of 500 firms with 100 or more power units was issued, and achieved a further 31 responses before books were closed at the end of 2000.  A further 11 responses from the pilot survey were also added to the database file, resulting in a final total of 158 achieved responses.

 

            A weight was computed for each sample stratum to restore correct proportionality of the achieved sample by firm size and by geography.[6]  The choice of the weighted total number of observations is arbitrary.  In the cross-tabulations provided in Appendix C.3, we chose to use a weighted base of 10,000 firms. [7] All of the data and commentary provided in this report are based on the weighted data, except (rarely) where information is identified specifically as “unweighted.”

 

            This sample design, while based on a quite small achieved sample size, allows some (limited) disaggregation by firm size and by exposure to CVISN concepts, thought to be important influencing variables for the behaviors and opinions under analysis.

 

Driver Survey Approach

 

            Among the various “customers” of interest are commercial vehicle drivers and owner‑operators.  The purpose of the data collection activity summarized here was to explore the opinions of truck drivers about recent, CVISN-related changes in roadside inspection methods, and the opinions of owner-operators about electronic credentialing.  The operators’ inputs are intended to help color, interpret, and better understand the information gathered in complementary evaluation activities.

 

            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 are ones that have implemented significant electronic credentialing initiatives, and have been the focus of other, complementary evaluation activities.  The interviewing took place at four locations, two in each of the states, in late November and early December 2000.

 

            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.

 

            Like all qualitative research, the primary objective was to identify the range of opinions on various aspects of these topics, and to form hypotheses about any apparent areas of consensus or disagreement.  Because of the small size of the sample and the method of sample recruitment, the degree to which the people interviewed are representative of any group larger than themselves cannot be determined.

 

            Gathering statistically defensible information about commercial vehicle drivers is a challenging objective, because of myriad practical difficulties in building a sampling frame, and contacting and interviewing people who, by virtue of their occupations, are on the move for large portions of their time.  It is not surprising that many of the surveys of drivers have used highly questionable sampling methods.[8]  A notable exception is the recently-published 1997 survey of commercial vehicle drivers at Midwestern rest/refueling stops, undertaken by the University of Michigan Trucking Industry Program. [9] This study made serious attempts to design a randomized sample within a specified geographical scope for intercept points, and invested significant resources and time into development work to refine the survey procedures and instrument.

 

            The resources available for this survey did not permit comparable efforts, nor a sample size sufficiently large to afford precise quantitative estimates, even were it feasible to design a random sample of drivers.  The approach adopted here was to use appropriate procedures and data from the UMTIP survey to help design a qualitative investigation of driver and owner‑operator opinions about CVISN-type innovations, primarily (1) the use of electronic vehicle identification and information in roadside inspections and (2) electronic credentialing practices.

 

            A further complicating factor in obtaining driver inputs about CVISN initiatives is that the general level of deployment to date has been such that drivers with direct, personal experience of them are likely to have very low incidence at possible intercept points.  In consequence, the interview focus was more concerned with reactions to the general CVISN concepts than to the specific extant deployments of those concepts.

 

            The survey approach was to undertake a number of semi-structured qualitative interviews with drivers at rest and refueling stops selected to provide a relatively high incidence of drivers likely to be familiar with new roadside screening methods.  The respondent selection process sought to randomize the selection of qualified respondents intercepted at those stops at the survey times.  However, because of the sample design and size, the survey does not generate quantitative estimates that are reliably projectable to any larger group than the people interviewed.

 

State Administrator Forums

 

            Methods for evaluating of the satisfaction of state CVO administrators with CVISN technologies were less formal than the measures used to gauge the satisfaction of motor carriers and commercial vehicle drivers.  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.  Examples of recent conferences and meetings include:

 

·        Various design and planning workshops organized by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory on behalf of FMCSA.

 

·        CVISN MDI Prototype and Pilot States Program Managers Meetings.  These meetings are held every three months or as needed.

 

·        Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2000 International Conference, April 2000, Irvine, California.

 

·        Great Lakes and Southeast States CVISN Mainstreaming Conference, May 11‑12, 2000, West Palm Beach, Florida.

 

·        Eastern States ITS-CVO Deployment Forum, November 14‑16, 2000, Crystal City, Virginia.

 

At each of these forums, participants were encouraged to offer opinions on successes, failures, obstacles, lessons learned, and issues to be resolved.  Information gathered from these kinds of meetings was taken into account in all phases of evaluating the CVISN MDI.

 

Roadside Enforcement Staff Surveys

 

            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 in collaboration with the evaluation of the I-95 Corridor Coalition and SAFER Data Mailbox FOTs (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.

 

 

7.2             Findings

 

Motor Carrier Survey Overview of Findings

 

            On the basis of our investigation of the motor carrier survey data set, we formed the following conclusions:

 

·        The general awareness throughout the national trucking industry of CVISN‑type initiatives is very low:  about 4 percent for electronic credentialing methods, about a third of all firms for electronic screening, and between a quarter and a third of firms for SAFER-type innovations.  Less than a half of one percent of firms currently have any experience using electronic credentialing, and about 6 percent are using electronic screening.

 

·        The effort and time presently involved in credentialing compliance and in roadside inspections is quite considerable.  Across all firms, the reported total in‑house staff time involved in credentialing had a mean of about 73 full-time equivalent days per firm per year, with a median value of about 20 FTE days.  Examining these data on a “per powered unit[10] operated” basis and breaking them down by firm size produces estimates that would intuitively appear to be inflated.  For example, for the firms operating 10 or fewer powered units, the mean claimed credentialing time expended per unit was 34 ("29) [11]FTE days per year, with a median value of 8 FTE days.

 

·        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.

 

·        For the firms that use in-house staff to handle some or all of their credentials work, the most common methods of submitting paperwork are by mail, walk-in, and fax.  About one in ten of these firms claimed to have used the Internet to file information over the preceding twelve months, but this statistic is highly variable by type of firm.

 

·        The respondents’ average levels of satisfaction with their current credentialing methods range from “weakly dissatisfied” to “weakly satisfied.”  OS/OW and HAZMAT permitting generally received the lowest satisfaction ratings, but these were also the types of credentials required by the smallest proportions of all firms.

 

·        The concept of electronic credentialing, of which most responding firms were not aware before the survey, elicited a significantly positive endorsement of the statement “With electronic credentialing, I’d expect the turnaround time to be much quicker.”  On the other hand, responses to other attitudinal statements revealed concerns about possible expansion of state regulation and charges, and the cost-effectiveness of the method for the respondent’s own firm.  Relatively favorable responses tended to be given by those firms currently devoting high levels of in-house staff time to credentialing, or expressing most dissatisfaction with current credentialing methods.  These same firms expressed a relatively high likelihood of adopting electronic methods if given the opportunity to do so, along with firms with a relatively high fleet mileage and intermediate sized firms (in terms of numbers of vehicles and drivers).

 

·        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.  The highest levels of dissatisfaction were with the criteria for deciding which vehicles to inspect, the time spent in the inspection itself, and (most markedly) the time spent waiting for inspection.  Several respondents commented also on safety concerns about truck queues for inspection backing up onto the highway.

 

·        Responses to attitudinal statements about electronic screening methods evidenced some similar negative concerns to those we found about electronic credentialing:  concerns about cost-effectiveness for the company and expansion of state regulation, for example.  Possibly because of closeness to the debate about deployment of vehicle monitoring technologies, the phrase “big brotherism” was volunteered by a number of respondents.  Nonetheless, there were significant levels of endorsement for the statements “Even without equipping our vehicles, we would probably benefit if the inspection officials had better information” and “These types of changes will make the roadside inspection system significantly more fair.”

 

·        Despite the relatively small sample size for this survey, it is apparent that examining the attitudinal responses about both electronic credentialing and electronic screening in greater detail, using multivariate clustering methods, could provide important insights into the types of firms most amenable to early adoption of these technologies.

 

Motor Carrier Survey Results

 

The Respondents' Experience of Credentialing

 

            Four out of every five trucking firms had obtained at least one permit within the preceding twelve months.  Roughly half the firms had filed for the most common paperwork:  the IRP/IFTA initial application, annual renewals, or IFTA quarterly tax.  Table 7-2 shows the incidence of credentialing experience (by permit type) for all firms, and for three subgroups expected to require permits and credentials to a greater than average extent:  the “for‑hire truckload carriers,” the firms with over 3 million fleet miles, and those requiring more than five different permit types.

 

Table 7-2.    Experience with Credentialing

 

 

Source:  Table A [Sources designated in tables and footnotes in Chapter 7 correspond to data tables in Appendix C.3].

 

            Roughly 28 percent of all firms use an outside firm to help obtain at least one form of credential.  By far the greatest use of outside firms, as a proportion of all applications, is to help obtain IRP/IFTA annual renewals.  Outside firms are used most heavily by medium-sized fleets (those with 11 to 50 powered units, or 11 to 70 drivers), and those with high annual fleet mileages (over 3 million miles per year).[12]

 

            About 59 percent of all firms use in-house resources in obtaining some or all of their credentials, and two-thirds of those provided some estimates of the staff time involved over the preceding twelve months.  We used the data from Questions 4 and 5 to compute estimates of the numbers of full-time equivalent (FTE) days expended by in-house managerial and clerical staff, and in total.[13]

 

            The mean total staff time expended, across all of the firms that gave us estimates, was approximately 73 person days involved in credentialing.  But because of the highly skewed distribution of firms by size, this mean is heavily influenced by the relatively small number of giant firms (the largest estimate for total staff time was 2.9 person years).  The median level of effort was approximately 20 FTE days.  Not surprisingly, the amount of clerical time spent increases with the size of the fleet, the annual fleet mileage, and the geographical scope of operations.  However, the mean level of “management” time expended is lower for the medium-sized firms (11 to 50 powered units, 11 to 70 drivers) than for the smaller or larger firms, perhaps reflecting the greater use of outside firms by the medium-sized group.

 

            Examining these staff time estimates on a per powered unit operated[14]basis, Table 7‑3 summarizes how this statistic varies by the size of the fleet.  Because the data weights are large and highly variable for firms with small fleets, the mean value for them has a large confidence interval.  The median value for the small firms – 8 person‑days per powered unit – intuitively seems high, which may indicate a tendency (by at least the small firms) to overstate the level of internal effort.

 

Table 7-3.  Total In-house Staff Time Expended per Year per Powered Unit (FTE Days)

 

	Mean value (± 95% confidence limits)	Median value
All firms	26.0 ± 9.2	8.0
10 or fewer powered units	34.3 ± 29.0	8.0
11 to 50 powered units	1.6 ± 0.4	2.0
Over 50 powered units	1.0 ± 1.2	0.2

 

      Source:  CRA calculations based on this statistic for each firm

 

            Table 7-4 shows the various methods of filing applications that respondent firms had used over the previous twelve months.  Overall, about one in ten of the firms doing their own credentialing work had used the Internet to file information (via E-mail or the World Wide Web) in that timeframe.  But the patterns here were quite variable, as the table illustrates.  Internet submission was relatively high for firms operating predominantly within their own states, for small firms, and for those firms who (in answers to a subsequent question) showed most dissatisfaction with their current credentialing processes.  As many as 35 percent of the “within state only” firms claimed to have used Internet submission within the last twelve months.

 

Table 7-4.             Methods Used to File Credentials Paperwork

 

Method of application	Firms using in the last twelve months
This table is based on those firms that use in-house resources to obtain credentials	All such firms	Within state hauls only	Obtained over five permit types	Dissatisfied currently
Mail-in applications  (submitted paperwork by mail)	65%	91%	97%	97%
Walk-in applications  (in-person visits to a credentialing office)	40%	52%	47%	35%
Faxed applications	27%	40%	18%	46%
Provided all necessary information by telephone	15%	2%	11%	25%
Submitted paperwork by Internet or E-mail, or filled out forms on a WWW website	10%	35%	0%	19%
None of these	1%			1%
Not reported	22%	5%	0%	0%

 

        Source:  Table E

 

            Experience with mail and walk-in submissions tended to be high for all groups.  Heavy use of faxed applications was associated with medium-sized firms, those with high fleet mileage, for‑hire truckload carriers, and firms devoting considerable staff time to credentialing matters.

 

Satisfaction with Current Credentialing Procedures

 

            Table 7-5 shows the mean satisfaction scores expressed for each of the ten types of credentials listed on the questionnaire, using a scale of –5 (“completely dissatisfied”) through +5 (“completely satisfied”).  The question wording asked specifically “How satisfied are you currently with the process your firm has to use (or has decided to use) for each of the following types of credentials or permits?”

 

            For the full sample of firms, the mean scores cover a relatively small section of the range, from –1.9 (which might be described as “weakly dissatisfied”) to +1.4 (“weakly satisfied”).  The means were positive and more than two standard errors from the neutral (zero) mark for the top four types of permits listed in the exhibit.  They were negative and more than two standard errors from zero for the last three permit types listed.

 

Table 7-5.             Satisfaction with Credentialing

 

Statement	Mean satisfaction score
+5 means “completely satisfied”; ‑5 means “completely dissatisfied”; zero is “neutral”	All firms	Heavy staff burden	Uses outside firm	Likely to use EC
Single state registration system (SSRS)	+1.4	–1.3	+0.2	+4.3
IRP/IFTA supplemental application (fleet changes)	+1.1	–1.8	–0.6	+4.1
IFTA quarterly tax	+1.0	–0.3	+1.3	+0.7
IRP/IFTA initial application	+0.9	–0.8	+0.2	+4.3
Intrastate registrations, for intrastate-only vehicles	+0.4	–4.7	–0.4	+3.8
IRP/IFTA annual renewals	+0.2	–3.1	+0.2	+2.4
Weight/Distance tax reports	–0.1	–2.2	+1.3	+0.4
IRP/IFTA “single trip” application	–0.8	+1.4	–0.8	+4.3
Oversize/Overweight (OS/OW) permits	–0.8	–4.7	+1.3	0.2
Hazardous materials (HAZMAT) permits	–1.9	–3.8	–3.1	0.8

 

    Source:  Table I

 

            The table also illustrates how the expressed satisfaction scores varied for some of the relevant sample segments that were least like the overall pattern of responses.  Firms devoting over 50 annual FTE days to credentialing activities were generally markedly less satisfied with the process for all permit types except for “single trip” applications.  The firms that, in answer to a later question identified themselves as either already using electronic credentialing or likely to do so if given the option within the next twelve months[15](just 27 unweighted respondents, representing 0.9 percent of all firms industry-wide), were generally more satisfied with their current processes than were firms as a whole.

 

Awareness and Use of Electronic Credentialing

 

            Very few of the firms in our sample had any current experience of electronic credentialing:  they constituted 0.4 percent of the total industry, or 0.5 percent of those firms answering all of the questions about awareness and use. [16] Another 4 percent of the firms claimed to have some awareness, but most of them did not know any details about current or planned availability.  The large residual group, almost 96 percent of the firms answering these questions, said that they were not aware of electronic credentialing, or were not sure whether or not they had heard of it.

 

Opinions About Electronic Credentialing

 

            Given this general lack of awareness, a potentially important influence on opinions about electronic credentialing is obviously the manner in which the survey described the concept to respondents.  Here is what the questionnaire said:

 

“ . . . electronic (computer-to-computer) methods for obtaining credentials or permits directly from any of the states for which your company needs credentials.  This “electronic credentialing” is the situation where you would send your information electronically direct to the state’s registration agency, not to an outside company who would then file the application on your behalf.”[17]

 

We then asked

 

“In some states, certain motor carriers do have the option of using electronic (computer-to-computer) methods for obtaining credentials or permits.  Here are some opinions from other motor carriers about electronic credentialing methods.  Please circle a number between 0 and 10 to show how much you personally agree or disagree with each statement below.  A 0 would mean that you disagree completely, and a 10 would mean that you agree completely.  A 5 means that you neither agree nor disagree, or that you have no opinion.”

 

            For the purposes of this report, we rescaled the opinion scores by subtracting 5 from them, thus making zero the neutral point, while negative values up to –5.0 indicate disagreement levels and positive values up to +5.0 indicate agreement.  Table 7-6 summarizes the mean scores for the various opinion statements.

 

            For the sample as a whole, the mean scores can be characterized as ranging from weak agreement to even weaker disagreement.  Even so, all but the four statements with mean sample‑wide scores of –0.2 or –0.3 are significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level.

 

            It is noteworthy that of the five statements with which the sample as a whole expressed agreement on average, four make negative comments about electronic credentialing, or about the firm’s interest in using electronic credentialing.  There is concern about the potential link with the expansion of state government regulation and standardization.  There is some concern also that “we are too small” to benefit, and that the cost savings might not exceed the additional outlays.  However, there was significant agreement that “I would expect the turnaround time to be much quicker,” even if on average the respondents did not agree that electronic credentialing would result in significant time or cost savings, or in the fairer, more accurate calculation of fees.

 

Table 7-6.             Opinions About Electronic Credentialing

 

Statement	Mean agreement score
+5 means “agree completely”; –5 means “disagree completely”; zero is “neutral”	All firms	Heavy staff burden	Dissatisfied currently	Uses outside firm
“I’m concerned that electronic credentialing will help the states to expand regulation and charges in new ways”	+1.7	+1.9	+1.0	+2.5
“Electronic credentialing would require us to use state-mandated standards, formats, or equipment”	+1.7	–2.3	–0.1	+1.3
“With electronic credentialing, I’d expect the turnaround time to be much quicker”	+1.4	+3.9	+2.7	+1.2
“We’re too small to justify thinking about electronic credentialing”	+1.2	–4.7	–3.0	+2.1
“Electronic credentialing is likely to cost my company more than we’d save”	+0.8	–2.8	–1.0	+0.3
“Training our existing staff to do electronic credentialing would be very difficult”	–0.2	–4.4	–2.7	–0.7
“Electronic credentialing would result in more accurate and fairer calculation of fees”	–0.2	+4.3	+0.8	+1.4
“I expect we’d make significant time and cost savings from using electronic credentialing”	–0.2	+3.4	+1.6	+0.4
“The only major beneficiaries of electronic credentialing will be the state agencies”	–0.3	–4.7	–2.9	–1.2
“Electronic credentialing would help me run a safer trucking operation”	–0.7	+2.3	–0.3	+1.2
“If we let our computers talk directly to the state’s computer, I’d be worried about privacy”	–0.9	–1.9	–1.9	–0.1
“Electronic credentialing would allow us to reorganize how we run the business, and help put more trucks on the road for more hours”	–0.9	–0.0	–1.3	–1.1

 

Source:  Table K

 

            The firms devoting more than 50 FTE days annually to credentials administration (12 percent of the total industry) were the most strongly enthusiastic of the subgroups examined.

 

            Table 7-6 shows that their mean agreement scores were markedly more variable than for the sample as a whole, endorsing the positive and rejecting the negative statements more strongly than the other respondents.  Other pockets of support illustrated in the table were the firms expressing dissatisfaction with their current credentialing processes (about one in three firms), and more guardedly, the 28 percent of firms currently using outside assistance to obtain at least some of their needed credentials.

 

Claimed Likelihood of Using Electronic Credentialing

 

            We asked respondents to express a likelihood, on a scale from zero through ten, that the respondent’s firm would opt to use electronic credentialing if “within the next twelve months your company has the opportunity to start using electronic means to obtain credentials or permits from at least one of the states with which you must register.”  Of the firms replying to this, about 30 percent expressed some positive likelihood of doing so, as indicated by a score of six or greater. [18] About 20 percent indicated that they were “very likely” to do so by picking a score of ten, although almost all of these respondents had been unaware of electronic credentialing prior to reading the questionnaire.  Another 31 percent chose zero to indicate that their firm would be “very unlikely” to use the new method.  The mean of the likelihood scores was 4.5.

 

            The subgroups with the highest mean likelihood scores were the firms currently devoting over 50 FTE days a year to credentialing (mean score 9.3), those with over 3 million annual fleet miles (8.7), and intermediate sized firms – those with 11 to 70 drivers (7.6) or 11 to 50 powered units (7.5).  Least likely to use were the firms most satisfied with their current credentialing arrangements (1.9), those operating entirely within the same state (3.1), and those expending 5 or fewer FTE days on credentialing per year (3.5).

 

            Given an open-ended invitation to explain their likelihood responses, respondents giving scores of six or higher most commonly mentioned better tracking of their “paperwork”[19](44%), saving time (27%), or saving money (24%).[20] The most popular reasons for lower scores were limited computer equipment or expertise (18%) and fear of tracking problems (8%).[21]  The former reason was particularly marked for intrastate and low fleet mileage carriers.  The full set of verbatim answers to this question is listed in Appendix C.4.

 

The Respondents’ Experience of Roadside Inspections

 

            About 45 percent of firms keep data on roadside inspections, but less than a third of those routinely prepare summaries of the data.[22]  For the most part, therefore, responses to our questions about the frequency of, and time involved in, roadside weight and safety checks were based on guesses rather than on data maintained by the firm.

 

            For a recent twelve-month period, the average firm providing information about roadside checks estimated 168 size and weight checks (ones requiring the vehicle to stop) for its fleet, and 24 safety inspections.  The estimated average amount of time spent per inspection was 19 minutes for size and weight checks and 45 minutes for safety checks.[23]

 

            For those firms providing this information, we used their estimates of the numbers and the average durations for both types of checks to compute respondent-specific estimates of the total fleet-wide time taken up in checks annually.  Table 7-7 summarizes the mean and median values for the fleet-wide estimates, while Table 7-8 shows those statistics on a “per powered unit” basis.  Because the industry is so highly skewed by firm size, the means and medians are sometimes quite disparate.

 

Satisfaction with Current Roadside Inspection Procedures

 

            Table 7-9 shows the mean satisfaction scores expressed for several aspects of roadside inspections, using a scale of –5 (“completely dissatisfied”) through +5 (“completely satisfied”).  The question wording asked specifically

 

“Overall, how satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of roadside inspections, as your company experiences them in the states in which your vehicles operate most?  We are not asking for your opinion about whether there should be roadside inspections at all; rather, given that the states decide to make roadside inspections, how satisfied are you with the ways in which the inspections are carried out?”

 

Table 7-7.    Firm-specific Estimates of Annual Time Spent Fleet-wide in Roadside Inspections

 

	Total annual fleet miles
	200  K or less	Over 200 K to 3 million	Over 3 million [24]
Size & weight checks
median value (vehicle-hours)	1.0	4.0	63.0
mean value (vehicle-hours)	1.1	108.2	290.5
Safety inspections
median value (vehicle-hours)	2.0	9.0	100.0
mean value (vehicle-hours)	1.5	19.4	105.6
All roadside inspections
median value (vehicle-hours)	2.0	10.0	163.0
mean value (vehicle-hours)	2.1	113.1	391.6

 

        Source:  Tables O, P, & Q

 

 

Table 7-8.  Roadside Inspections per Year per Powered Unit

 

	Number per year per powered unit		Total time per year per powered unit (vehicle hours)
	Mean value (± 95% confidence limits)	Median value	Mean value (± 95% confidence limits)	Median value
Size & weight checks
All firms	9.0 ± 6.6	1.0	2.4 ± 3.0	0.5
10 or fewer powered units	8.8 ± 11.9	1.0	2.3 ± 5.9	0.5
11 to 50 powered units	9.0 ± 8.0	7.1	2.2 ± 2.0	1.8
Over 50 powered units	17.5 ± 35.7	0.03	6.8 ± 15.9	0.01
Safety inspections
All firms	2.4 ± 0.6	1.0	1.9 ± 0.5	0.5
10 or fewer powered units	2.4 ± 1.6	1.0	1.8 ± 1.2	0.5
11 to 50 powered units	2.5 ± 0.5	2.9	2.2 ± 0.5	2.9
Over 50 powered units	0.8 ± 0.7	0.05	0.5 ± 0.4	0.03

 

Source:  CRA calculations based on the statistics for each firm

 

Table 7-9.    Satisfaction with Roadside Inspections

 

Statement	Mean satisfaction score
+5 means “completely satisfied”; –5 means “completely dissatisfied”; zero is “neutral”	All firms	High time spent in checks	High vehicle mileage
The types of checks made	+1.0	+2.5	+2.3
The frequency of inspections	–0.1	–1.7	–2.3
The fairness of the inspection process	–0.2	–0.8	–1.0
The criteria for deciding which vehicles to inspect	–1.1	–3.3	–4.2
The time spent in vehicle inspection itself	–1.1	–3.3	–4.1
The time spent waiting for inspection	–2.0	–3.7	–4.0

 

        Source:  Table R

 

            Except for “the types of checks made,” for which the mean satisfaction score was +1.0, the average respondent (in the “All firms” column) expressed weak to medium levels of dissatisfaction with all of the other listed aspects of roadside checks.  The mean scores were negative and more than two standard errors from zero for the last three aspects listed in the exhibit.  The time taken up by roadside inspections, both the inspection itself and waiting for it to take place, are obviously major concerns.

 

            Not surprisingly, the dissatisfaction levels are more pronounced for two groups that experience roadside inspection the most:  the firms with over 3 million fleet miles per year (“High vehicle mileage”), and those with over 15 vehicle-hours spent annually in such inspections (“High time spent in checks”).  Both groups were more satisfied than average with the types of checks being made, however, suggesting that while these firms see a need or usefulness for inspections, they see room for improvement in the way the inspections are carried out.  These types of sentiments are illustrated also by the verbatim responses included in Appendix C.4.

 

            When asked what suggestions they had for improvements to roadside inspections, the one idea that was expressed by respondents representing the greatest part of the industry was better targeting of vehicles.  Other suggestions or comments offered by respondents included greater consistency or uniformity in the way inspections are carried out or regulations enforced, taking steps to reduce evasion (greater side road coverage, more portable inspection units, etc.), better enforcement of regulations, and better inspectors.[25]

 

Awareness and Use of Electronic Screening

 

            Survey respondents were told that

 

“Some places are beginning to use a new method of roadside screening that is sometimes called ‘Mainline screening.’  This is where an electronic transponder on board the vehicle allows enforcement officials to identify vehicles as they travel along the road at highway speeds.  Vehicles operated by carriers with good safety records will not be signaled to pull in or stop for safety checks.  Carriers may pay an annual fee per vehicle, allowing an unlimited number of uses over the year (as with the ‘NORPASS program’), or they may be charged each time an equipped vehicle passes an inspection site (as with the ‘HELP PrePass program’).”

 

            About two out of every three firms said that they had not previously heard about this development.  Only 7 percent of the firms claimed to be using mainline screening already.  The remaining firms (27 percent) had heard of electronic screening, but three-quarters of them did not expect to be using it within the next two years.[26]

 

            Awareness increased with the size of the firm, with the amount of vehicle time currently spent in roadside inspections, and with the level of dissatisfaction with current screening procedures.

 

            When asked, in an open-ended question, for “the most important reasons for or against your company participating in a program like this,” several themes emerged.  The most common were potential time savings (43 percent of all mentions) on the positive side; and on the negative side, various concerns about aspects of privacy and “Big Brotherism,” (24 percent), and the costs of participation (24 percent).[27]

 

            We also asked respondents whether they were aware that, in some states, inspection and enforcement staff might have information about an individual carrier’s safety history, or about individual vehicle condition and compliance, available to them in making screening and inspection decisions.  Of the firms responding, 34 percent said they were aware that a carrier’s safety history might be known to the inspector,[28]and 22 percent said that they were aware that the vehicle condition information might be known.[29]

 

Opinions About Electronic Screening

 

            In a similar manner to the comparable question about electronic credentialing, we asked respondents to indicate their levels of agreement or disagreement with nine different opinion statements, using an eleven-point scale.  Table 7-10 summarizes the mean agreement scores.

 

            Across all the respondents, there was a general tendency to agree with the statements, both positive and negative, about electronic screening.  For all but the last three statements listed in the exhibit, the mean agreement score was greater than two standard errors from zero.  The three statements garnering greatest agreement sample-wide were negative about electronic screening or its applicability to the respondent, but there was also a significant level of endorsement for “Even without equipping our vehicles, we would probably benefit if the inspection officials had better information” and “These types of changes will make the roadside inspection system significantly more fair.”

 

            Table 7-10 also shows the mean agreement scores for three subgroups who might be expected a priori to be interested in electronic screening to a greater extent than the average firm:  those with more than 15 vehicle-hours spent annually in roadside checks fleet-wide, those expressing dissatisfaction with the current roadside inspection arrangements, and those with over 3 million fleet vehicle miles per year.  With some interesting variations in the case of a few of the statements, it is generally true that these three groups were more strongly in agreement with the positive statements and less ready to endorse the negative statements.  But despite the fact that there appears to be a significant constituency among trucking firms for fair, vigilant, and uniform enforcement, all groups appear to harbor concerns about the technology’s ability to permit increased governmental regulation.

 

            Finally, we asked whether “any recent changes in roadside inspection or enforcement policies in the states in which your trucks operate caused your company to spend additional dollars, either to take advantage of streamlined inspection procedures or to improve your compliance with the safety regulations?”  For 65 percent of the firms responding, there had been no increase from the previous year.  About 15 percent thought that they had spent additional amounts, and the residual 20 percent were not sure.  Claims of increased spending were greatest for firms operating on a national or international scale, and those with over 15 vehicle‑hours spent in roadside checks annually.[30]

 

Table 7-10.    Opinions about electronic screening

 

Statement	Mean agreement score
+5 means “agree completely”; –5 means “disagree completely”; zero is “neutral”	All firms	High time spent in checks	Dissatisfied currently	High vehicle mileage
“We’re too small to justify thinking about putting transponders in our units”	+2.8	–3.3	+1.6	–3.7
“Equipping all our units with transponders is likely  to cost my company more than we’d save”	+2.7	+0.5	+2.6	+0.2
“I’m concerned that changes like these will help the states to expand regulation and charges in new ways”	+2.3	+2.6	+1.3	+2.3
“Even without equipping our vehicles, we’d probably benefit if the inspection officials had better information”	+1.9	+4.2	+1.4	+3.9
“I worry about government agencies having so much information about our vehicles”	+1.7	+2.3	+1.5	+2.6
“These types of changes will make the roadside inspection system significantly more fair”	+1.2	+3.6	+1.2	+4.2
“Even if the time spent in safety and weight inspections were halved, there’d be very little impact on our costs”	+0.4	–3.2	–1.0	–4.1
“I expect that our drivers would be pleased by these types of changes”	+0.3	+3.4	+0.4	+3.6
“If these new inspection methods were more widespread, I expect we’d make significant time and cost savings”	–0.0	+3.6	+0.9	+3.8

 

   Source:  Table X

 

Driver Survey Overview of Findings

 

            This qualitative survey of truck drivers suggests the following conclusions:

 

·        In discussing with these drivers the aspects of highway weight checks and safety inspections that concerned them (for example, in distinguishing between “good” and “bad” states), three themes recurred the most:  the professionalism and attitudes of inspectors, the frequency and thoroughness of inspections, and the standards for facilities and equipment.  The respondents spoke of differences between the states in the ways in which the inspection personnel treat them.  They spoke about the level of detail of safety inspections; what was regarded by some as a good thoroughness was viewed by others as “pickiness,” or showing more concern with revenue-raising or enforcing the letter of the law than with safety.

 

·        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.  Drivers expressed the opinion that it should be feasible in many cases to conduct these inspections in safer places than immediately by the roadside.  The second is the tailback of trucks at scalehouses extending back out onto the highway.  The drivers thought that when that occurred, it should be legal for newly-arriving trucks to pass by without stopping.

 

·        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.

 

·        Twenty-three of 59 drivers interviewed had some personal experience of electronic screening.  In fact, only 11 of the drivers claimed that they had not heard of electronic screening before; the remaining 25 had heard of the concept and 11 of them had discussed it with drivers who had personal experience of using it.  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.  Only one experienced driver was more negative about the concept than positive; he had apparently not realized significant time savings.  The most frequently mentioned deficiency of electronic screening concerned the limited set of states currently allowing electronic screening, and the fact that the various systems were not interchangeable.  Beyond that, there was a little concern about “big brotherism” and possible health risks from the technology, but these comments were much less frequent than the words of strong praise.

 

·        A similar response was obtained from the drivers who had no personal experience of electronic screening but who had talked about it with drivers who had such experience.  Among the group with a lower level of engagement (those previously unaware, or aware but who had not discussed it with experienced drivers), there was more skepticism, more of a “show me” attitude.  While slightly more of them had a net positive response than a net negative response, they raised possible drawbacks that the others had not.  One was a concern that safety might be impaired; another that drivers working for firms with poor records would not benefit; and there was also concern about whether or not the technology working properly

 

·        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[31]to obtain credentials and permits.

 

·        Awareness of electronic credentialing was much lower than for electronic screening.  None of 18 respondents had any personal experience of using it.  Only one had discussed it with a peer who had used it, and five more claimed to have heard of the idea, but not to have discussed it with anyone who had used it.  The residual 12 owner‑operators had not been aware of electronic credentialing prior to the interview.

·        Nonetheless, the balance of the “top of the head” reactions was quite positive, many drivers expressing an interest in finding out more about it and foreseeing that it might help make their lives easier.  There was no concern expressed about needing to be computer-literate to take advantage of the idea.  Negative reactions focused mostly on “big brotherism” concerns.

 

·        In summary, the overriding tenor of the driver survey responses to these two CVISN innovations was quite strongly positive.

 

Driver Survey Results

 

The Respondents' Experience of Roadside Inspections

 

            All 61 of the respondents, owner-operators and employees alike, were questioned about roadside inspections.  First, they were asked to list the US states in which they could remember “having been weighed or inspected during the last four weeks.”  Responses ranged from just one state up to 46 (for one person, the states were too numerous to remember).  The average number of different states reported was 6.7 for the Connecticut-intercepted (henceforth, CTI) drivers and 9.7 for the Kentucky-intercepted (KYI) drivers.

 

            The states mentioned by more than a third of the respondents as ones where they had been weighed or inspected recently were Ohio (25 mentions); Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia (each 23 mentions); and Illinois (20 mentions).  Other frequently mentioned states (with 15 or more mentions) were Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

 

            To set the stage before talking with the drivers about any inspection innovations, at the start of the interview we asked, “From your point of view, are there any states where weight and safety inspections are handled significantly better than others?  And are there states where you think weight and safety inspections are handled particularly poorly?”  States cited as particularly good included California, Kentucky, and Tennessee (7 mentions each); Georgia (6 mentions); Connecticut and Virginia (5 mentions); and New York (4 mentions).  Particularly poor states, from the drivers’ viewpoints, were California (10 mentions); Ohio (7 mentions); Connecticut and Tennessee (6 mentions); and Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia (4 mentions).

 

            The duplication of five state names near the top of both the “good” and “poor” lists points up the diversity of opinion, and suggests that familiarity may be a major determinant of whether a state would be mentioned as particularly good or poor.  When we ranked the states by their net positive mentions (number of times cited as one of the best minus the number of times cited as particularly poor), the states at the top of the list were Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Iowa, New York, and Arizona.

 

            More interesting are the reasons the respondents gave for their choices, when asked “What types of differences between the states makes a state particularly good or bad?”  Three themes recurred the most:  the professionalism and attitudes of inspectors, the frequency and thoroughness of inspections, and the standards for facilities and equipment.

 

            The aspects of inspector behavior eliciting most comment (negatively) was “attitude,” but some drivers also rated states highly because of good inspector characteristics:

 

“[CO, MD, OH are good because] their attitude to start with; they don’t have that ‘cop’ attitude.  Friendly attitude and treatment.”

 

“[In NY] the officers are more friendly and personable; they act in a professional manner.”

 

“[In CA and NY, they have] older, more experienced patrolmen, better and more fair.”

 

“Attitude, the way they talk to drivers [in TN], like we don’t got good sense.”

 

“[In bad states, they’re] looking too hard for problems to write a ticket; a holier-than-thou attitude.”

 

“Tennessee has terrible officers, very uncooperative and smart-mouthed.  They abuse their authority.”

 

“[In KS and MO] they don’t go by the rules looking for stuff.  They go under the rig with a wrench then tell you you got brake problems.  One guy’s with you looking in the back while the other one’s in the front going through your personal stuff.”

 

“[In NC and VA they are] strict.  Attitude that they care strongly.  Neat and clean uniforms; the officers are clean.”

 

            The frequency and thoroughness of inspections was an aspect on which respondents differed.  For many, thoroughness was a good thing, but what some saw as thoroughness others saw as “picky” behavior on the part of the inspectors, more interested in punishment or in revenue-raising than in furthering highway safety.  The epitome of a thorough or nitpicky state, depending on viewpoint, was clearly California:

 

“[CA is the] most thorough; they hassle you. . . .  They need to give you a chance to fix things.  They write you up for tinted windows and other not important things.”

 

“[In CA] things that pass inspection in other states don’t pass here.  They’re nitpicking, looking for revenue.”

 

“[In CA] they don’t care about safety, all they want is to write a ticket and fine you.”

 

“Good states [like CA, IN, KY] are more thorough.  DOT officers are not a money-doing job, [and are?] without a bad attitude.”

“[In CA] they’re gonna find something wrong with nitpick – they’re out for the money.  In Missouri, they give you breaks, no tickets – they’re not out for the money.”

 

“Some states [like CA, KY, MI] get really picky about insignificant, picky things.  They’ll pull you out of service for minor violations which shouldn’t even be looked at.”

 

“[In CA and WY] scales are open more often.  When they pull you in for an inspection they do a good job.”

 

“California is quite a bit stricter – well, a little too strict, like they get you for a minor oil leak.”

 

“[In CT] they’ll stop you and go around the trailers to check lights, tires, a full check-up on you – that’s good.”

 

            Generally speaking, drivers appreciate inspection sites with better facilities and equipment.  A few specifically mentioned weigh-in-motion and electronic screening systems (for example) as aspects that make a state relatively good:

 

“Lots of drivers don’t like Kentucky because the scales are always open.  Kentucky has the supercoop – a full service inspection [where they] put you over a service bay and check every aspect.”

 

“[In good states, they have] good proper facilities; actually got underneath and looked.”

 

“Louisiana and Nebraska have weigh-in-motion.  You don’t have to stop, and unless within 2,000-3,000 lbs. they won’t pull you in.  Arkansas has PrePass.”

 

“[In LA] they’ve got the rolling scales.  If you’re overweight they pull you around back.  The scales are in the road on the right lane; you go across and you can bypass the scales.”

 

“In Virginia, it seems like it takes longer to get through their scales.  That’s where the WIM scales help out; they’re quicker, and you roll right by.”

 

“[Good are] PrePass states; Iowa is going to have it.”

 

“The places with the newer facilities are the best.  They’re easier and accurate.”

 

“[About CT:  I like] the size of the station – you can easily get in and off, and then get back on the road.  The facilities are well-maintained and well-lit.  [In bad states,] too small, no lighting.”

 

“[Good states] have better scales, more sophisticated scales in the road.”

 

            Relatedly, there were several grouses about what respondents perceived to be less‑than‑adequate arrangements for weight checks or safety inspections – portable scales, roadside pullovers, long lines for inspections backing out onto the highway, and long delays:

 

“Alabama doesn’t have any scales for trucks.  Some places don’t have the equipment to do nothing.”

 

“Texas doesn’t have permanent stations; they just set up places along the road.”

 

“Some scales are old and outdated, and trucks back up to the highway and that is a hazard.  Only holds 10 trucks; it’s bad and takes longer.”

 

“[In OH and MI] traffic is backed up, very dangerous.  There’s not enough room to conduct inspections.”

 

“[Bad states:] portable weigh scales take longer and are not accurate.”

 

“Inspection on an emergency basis by the DOT is unsafe, it should be in a proper area.  DOT or state troopers pull people over.”

 

“They pull you over on the side of the road; instead they could call you on the CB and tell you to take the next exit.”

 

“Connecticut takes too much time.  If they have a problem with a driver they leave him in line and back everyone up.”

 

“[Bad states] don’t have any run-over scales, and they use portable which are more time-consuming.”

 

            Many of the same themes were heard in response to the next question.  We asked “If you could suggest or make changes to the ways in which roadside inspections are typically organized and conducted, that would not result in more unsafe vehicles on the roads, what would be your highest priorities?”  Of the 55 drivers who offered suggestions, by far the most common “most important change” (from 21 of them) was to limit inspections to places where they could be done safely, most notably not on the hard shoulder at the side of the road:

 

“I don’t mind inspections, but I want them safe.”

 

“They need to move roadside inspections to off the road, like a rest stop or something else, but they do it right there on the side – real gutsy.”

 

            Suitable locations were thought to be parking lots, weigh stations, rest areas, even exit ramps, but not at the side of the fast-moving highway itself.

 

            A related suggestion (mentioned by seven drivers as their most important change) was to make sure that the backed-up queues of trucks at weigh stations do not stretch out onto the highway, thereby causing a safety problem.  When the queue reaches the end of the ramp, it should be legal to bypass the facility, said most of these respondents.

 

            The following were suggestions each made by five drivers as part of their most important improvements:

 

·        More standardization of rules and procedures across states, or greater cross‑state coordination of inspection findings:

 

“I was pulled over in Northern Kentucky and went right on down the road and got pulled in again in Ohio for another; they wouldn’t even accept the DOT papers.”

 

“Why can’t all systems work together?  [On] I-75 they have Advantage 75; my transponder won’t work on it.  More states should have PrePass.  If you run legal like we do, [there’s] no reason to get pulled over or stop.”

 

“It would be good if they all did the same thing, you know, followed the same rules across the country.  You got different rules in different states.”

 

“Use a sticker system to avoid being inspected again.”

 

·        Improved differentiation as to which vehicles or firms most merit inspection (with small firms mentioned several times as justifying more inspection than larger firms).

 

·        Not surprisingly in view of the earlier comments, some drivers thought that the most important improvement would be to focus on the quality, training, knowledge, or attitude of the inspectors.

 

            Other suggestions receiving lower levels of endorsement by their peers but still worthy of recognition here included calls for more electronic screening; more weigh-in-motion scales; mandatory periodic inspections at a safely-located, well-equipped location; grace periods for the correction of deficiencies; greater differentiation with regard to potential deficiencies, focusing on things most important to safety; and more frequent, less intensive or time-consuming checks, focusing on particular items at particular times.

 

Awareness and use of electronic screening

 

            Survey respondents were next told that

 

“Some places are beginning to use a new method of screening trucks for weight, safety, and proper credentials that is sometimes called “mainline screening” or “electronic screening.”  This is where an electronic transponder on board your truck allows the enforcement officials to identify your vehicle as you travel along the road at highway speeds.  Vehicles operated by carriers with good records are less likely to be signaled to pull in or stop for safety checks.  The programs like this that are best known are the “NORPASS program, the “HELP PrePass program,” and the “Oregon Green Light program.”

 

            Of the 59 drivers answering a question about their awareness of this development, 11 drivers said that they had not heard of electronic screening before; 9 of these were Connecticut intercepts.  Twenty-three drivers claimed personal experience of using electronic screening.  This compares with 7 percent of the trucking firms nationally that claimed to be using mainline screening in answer to an almost identical question in the companion National Motor Carrier Survey.  Remember, however, that the intercept locations were selected in part to improve our chances of finding drivers with personal experience of CVISN-type innovations.  The remaining 25 respondents were aware of electronic screening, and eleven of them had talked with drivers who had used it.

 

            We asked the 23 respondents who had personal experience of using electronic screening to tell us the details of that experience:  in which states, with which electronic screening program, for how long, and so on.  Sixteen of the 23 were employees of companies with 40 or more drivers, and 2 were from firms with fewer than 40 drivers.  The remaining 5 respondents with personal experience of electronic screening were owner-operators, but all 5 of them appeared to be leasing their vehicles from a “brand name” firm.

 

            For most of these people, electronic screening was relatively new.  Their experience with it stretched back a matter of months or one or two years, for the most part;  the longest claimed experience was four years.  A couple of the drivers remarked that only some of the vehicles in their employers’ fleets were transponder-equipped.

 

            Among the people mentioning various systems, NORPASS was mentioned by only one person and Advance 75 by only one person.  The awareness of PrePass appeared to be much higher than for any other system.  Respondents ranged in their awareness from one (atypical) who had encountered a system

 

 “. . . in another truck, but hasn’t been used.  I really don’t know enough to say about that stuff.”

 

to some who could readily reel off a list of the states where their system was used.

 

Opinions about electronic screening

 

            We asked the 23 drivers with personal experience of electronic screening and the 11 who told us they had talked about it with other drivers who had personal experience:

 

“From your own experience, or from what you have heard from other drivers, how well does mainline screening work?  What are the good things and the bad things about it?”

 

            The remaining 25 respondents who had been unaware of electronic screening, or aware but had not talked about it with anyone who had personal experience, were instead asked:

 

“From your viewpoint as a driver, what do you think about mainline screening?  Do you think it would be a good idea or a bad idea?  Why?  What things do you think you would like most about it?  What things would you like least?  Why?”

 

            By and large, the response from the people with direct personal experience of electronic screening was overridingly positive, primarily because of the time savings:

 

“If I get stopped it allows me to move on, no down time.  Should have started it years ago.  [It’s a] good idea.  Trucks are often backed up on the highway when scales are closed, and it causes accidents.  The transponder allows trucks to keep moving.”

 

“It seems like a good idea.  It saves time and it improves the flow of traffic.  [I have] nothing negative.”

 

“Good.  I don’t have to go in to scales.  It saves time, I don’t have to wait.  Only good.  I got a little book about how it works from my company.  It never malfunctions that I know of.”

 

“A great thing.  You don’t have to sit out on the road in long lines, where accidents occur.”

 

“Excellent idea – more standards for more tolls.  DOT should make it mandatory.  I love the green light.  I want to use it for all and not [just] some states.  Since DOT is nationwide, why can’t PrePass be nationwide?”

 

“I love it. . . . The best thing there is, the finest.  It cuts down a lot of time.  Everyone should have it.”

 

“It’s very convenient; I drive through at 30 mph.”

 

“Excellent idea.”

 

“Best thing [they] ever came out with.  I like it all.”

 

            The most frequent negative comment concerned the limited set of states currently allowing electronic screening, and the fact that the various systems were not interchangeable.  Beyond that, there were a couple of comments about “big brotherism”:

 

“They can electronically track you.  They can look up there and tell where I am within three feet.”

 

“It’s a tattletale, it tells too much.”

 

            One concern about possible health risks:

 

“It saves time, but it could be harmful for a driver’s health, like radar.  It hasn’t really been tested.”

 

            And finally, one user who was less than convinced on functionality grounds:

 

“I’ve been using for three months.  Ten percent of states accommodate it.  If the weight is balanced and not over gross, everything is OK.  The transponder doesn’t save that much time.  There’s just less chance of being harassed.  It’s mounted in a bad spot on the windshield and creates a blind spot.  It’s a joke.”

 

            The comments were quite similar from the eleven drivers who did not have personal experience of electronic screening but had spoken about it with other drivers who did.  Of the eleven, nine (perhaps ten) appeared to be broadly in favor, and the general sentiment was

 

“I wish my company had it.”

 

            There was one clearly negative opinion:

 

“I don’t like it because it is like living in a fish bowl.  I got DOT, the police, my company all after me.  You’ve got that Qualcom satellite and computer on my truck.”

 

            And one somewhat mixed view that was also confusing electronic screening with other technologies and issues:

 

“[The bad part is the] logbooks.  If we all had to run legal logbooks, we’d all go broke.  I think it is a failure.  We don’t want to be tracked.  I think it works great as far as not having to stop at scales.  It’s convenient for truckers as long as you stay in [good?] standing.”

 

            For the group of 25 drivers with low levels of awareness of electronic screening, the opinions were decidedly more varied.  On the basis of the balance of their comments, we classified one respondent as strongly positive, 13 as weakly positive, 6 as weakly negative, and one as strongly negative.  The remaining four appeared neutral.  The perceived positives of electronic screening were mostly time savings and the reduction of backup lines at scales.  Expressed concerns included “big brotherism” again, as well as the costs.  But some new themes were also aired.  One was a concern that safety might be impaired; another that drivers working for firms with poor records would not benefit; and there was also concern about the technology working properly:

 

“[The thing I like the least is] things [an inspector] may see that a driver hasn’t seen.  If you bypass the scales, he wouldn’t see.  It wouldn’t be as safe for the driver.”

 

“It’ll save truckers a few minutes but it won’t inspect trucks and some unsafe ones will get through.”

 

“[The thing I like the least is it’s] bound to get someone whose truck shouldn’t have been on the road but it’ll go through.”

 

“If a company has a good reputation they shouldn’t be inspected as much.  My firm had a rep for being over hours and if they saw us they pulled us over.”

 

“If it’s electronic they may fail and cause more problems.  It might fail like my dispatch system sometimes [does], even though they say it shouldn’t.”

 

            There was some concern about owner-operators, and not just from the owner‑operators themselves:

 

“We’ll figure out owner-operators aren’t getting checked up as often, and will target those types of drivers.  Big firms need to be checked too because we don’t inspect the truck.”

 

“Bad idea.  Just because it’s company-owned doesn’t mean they should pass by.  We don’t do an inspection, we do a visual, kick the tires, etc.  They’ll single out the owner-operators.”

 

“Bad idea.  It’ll cost the independents.  It won’t hurt companies too bad because they have more money.”

 

            Eighteen owner-operators without personal experience of electronic screening were asked to characterize their likelihood of starting to use it if they had the opportunity to do so “in at least one of the states through which you travel regularly” within the next twelve months.  Eight of the 18 classified themselves as “very likely,” one said “somewhat likely,” one said “somewhat unlikely,” and five said “very unlikely.”  Two volunteered that it would depend on the costs, and one could not say.

 

            With the exclusion of the five “very unlikely” respondents, the remaining owner‑operators were asked whether they would prefer to pay for such a service on an “annual fee per truck” basis (4 positive responses) or on a “fee per inspection site passed” basis (2 positive responses).  For two respondents, it would depend on the costs, and the others were unable to express an opinion.

 

            We also asked our respondents whether they were aware that, in some states, inspection and enforcement staff might have information about an individual carrier’s safety history, or about individual vehicle condition and compliance, available to them in making screening and inspection decisions.  Of the 59 drivers responding, 47 said they were aware that a carrier’s safety history might be known to the inspector, and 38 said that they were aware that the vehicle condition information might be known.  These awareness proportions are somewhat higher than those for company management, in responses to identical questions asked in the National Motor Carrier Survey.  However, we caution about reading too much into this difference.  The driver survey locations were chosen to increase our chances of finding drivers with experience of CVISN-type initiatives, and we also suspect that drivers might be more inclined to over‑claim their awareness in response to a question like this.

 

The Respondents' Experience of Credentialing

 

            We asked the 19 owner-operators in the sample to estimate the total time that they needed to devote annually to acquiring stickers and credentials, including any time spent traveling to and from registry offices.  Fourteen people ventured estimates ranging from 40 person-hours per year down to zero.  In the latter case, offered by four respondents, some mentioned that credentialing matters were handled by someone else on their behalf.  The mean number of person-hours spent was 11.9 per year.

 

            We also asked these owner-operators whether, disregarding the fees paid for the permits themselves, they incurred any other out-of-pocket costs to handle credentialing matters (such as fees paid to agents).  Some could not say because the credentialing costs were bundled with the lease of the vehicle.  Five owner-operators offered estimates ranging from $300 to $1,860 per year, and averaging $1,092 per person making such payments.  Including the owner-operators with no out-of-pocket credentialing expenses, the mean was a little over $340 per year per owner-operator.

 

Awareness and use of electronic credentialing

 

            The owner-operators were told

 

“Some states are now using electronic (computer-to-computer) methods for obtaining credentials or permits.  This electronic credentialing is the situation where you would send your information electronically direct to the state’s registration agency, not to an outside company who would then file the application on your behalf.”

 

            Twelve of 18 respondents told us that they had never heard of electronic credentialing before.  None of the 18 had any personal experience of using it.  Five had heard of the idea, but had not talked with any driver who had used it.  Only one had spoken with another driver with personal experience of electronic credentialing.  These incidences are quite consistent with the very low levels of awareness and experience found in our National Motor Carrier Survey.

Opinions about electronic credentialing

 

            Given this general lack of awareness before the interview, respondents’ impressions of electronic credentialing would obviously be influenced by what (little) the interviewers had said in describing the concept.  But the first impressions were substantially favorable:

 

“Good idea – get rid of the paper and time.  This is a time-sensitive business.  [A] bad thing might be it doesn’t allow you to cut corners and loopholes; it may be too restrictive.”

 

“That would be nice, to sit at a computer and send it in electronically.  It’d be easier and more convenient for me.”

 

“Good idea, but I’d have to know more about it.  Anything that cuts time, costs, and red tape are always good.”

 

“From what you’re saying, it’d be a good idea.  It would save time and money.  Big firms don’t care because they have lots of money.  I’m one driver with one truck, and I have to watch my money.”

 

“Run[ning] it through the computer would be a good deal.”

 

“A good idea.  The fact that I can file everything before I leave [would be] very convenient.  Convenience is the key.”

 

“Very interested.  [It’s a] pretty decent idea.”

 

“Good idea.  Save time and travel; that’s it, it saves gas money.”

 

“Very interested as long as it will streamline the process.”

 

            Somewhat surprisingly, no one mentioned being fazed by needing a computer.  There were several comments of the “big brotherism” variety, but generally these were from people whose first reaction was still favorable.  Of the two totally negative responses, one was from an owner-operator whose credentialing was currently handled by the vehicle lessor:

 

“Not interested.  I want someone else to do it, then if it’s wrong it’s their fault.”

 

while the second opined

 

“I don’t trust the electronic end of it.  Someone else could get your information.  I prefer U.S. Mail, or straight to the office.”

 

Administrator and Roadside Enforcement Overview of Findings

 

            A separate DOT/FHWA report (2000) outlines the lessons learned from ITS CVO deployment, according to state administrators.  Among the findings are the following:

·        State commercial vehicle enforcement agencies recognize that safety information exchange technology facilitates the inspection process and helps 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 believe that the use of safety information at the roadside enhances the inspection process and helps inspectors focus on high-risk carriers.  The major issues include the technical challenges involving communication between the roadside and state offices using wireless technologies.  The cost and technical challenges to deploy CVIEW and SAFER Data Mailbox (SDM) are also major concerns with state administrators.  However, the general reactions of states using CVIEW and SDM are positive.

 

·        The potential benefits of electronic screening are widely acknowledged., but several key issues may affect further deployment of electronic screening. Most people in the CVO industry agree that interoperability, or the ability for a vehicle to operate with the same equipment and under similar rules as it travels from state to state, is critical to increased participation.

 

·        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.  This result primarily stems from the many technical challenges involved in establishing interfaces between new and legacy, or archival, databases and software systems.

 

            The final evaluation report on the I-95 and SAFER Data Mailbox FOTs (2000) describes the methods used and presents detailed findings from the survey of roadside enforcement personnel.  Among the findings are the following:

 

·        Using Safety Information Exchange technology has become integral to the jobs of most roadside inspectors who participated in surveys and focus groups as part of the I-95/SDM evaluation.  This technology can save time and improve the speed and accuracy of data reporting.  Other benefits reported include more uniform reporting and greater credibility with the motor carriers.

 

·        Motor carrier inspectors perceive that ISS helps them to identify high-risk carriers.

 

·        Inspectors reported high levels of satisfaction with the laptop computer system for inspection reporting, citing the legibility and professional appearance of reports as a major benefit.  Inspectors reported using a core of computer-based services related to Aspen, ISS, and SAFER.  Among the software applications, ISS enjoys the most widespread use in inspections.

 

·        Computer-based inspections are seen to represent a significant improvement over previous, paper-based systems, making the work of inspectors more efficient.  Overall, inspectors tended to speak in terms of more immediate, day-to-day benefits rather than long-range impacts on highway safety.

 

7.3             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.

 

“What Have We Learned About Intelligent Transportation Systems?,” U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration Report, Chapter 6, EDL No. 13316, December 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

(This page intentionally left blank.)