The work in the Analysis and Program Evaluation area represents a continuation of the Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) support of North Carolina’s Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP). It involves a range of analysis and program support/evaluation activities. Below are descriptions of project performed in this area:
Preliminary MCE Planning for CVSP and Size and Weight Plan Development
The following documents represent some of ITRE’s input to the Motor Carrier Enforcement section of the NC State Highway Patrol as the Patrol’s MCE unit prepares to develop its 2008-2009 Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) for submission to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). ITRE, who has provided CVSP analysis and program evaluation support to the MCSAP section since the late 1990s and to the MCE size and weight section for the past three years, has provided inputs in a number of areas: (a) the development of measures of effectiveness for MCSAP and size and weight enforcement programs, (b) the need to focus on the impacts of pending state legislation impacting large vehicle access to state roads, and (c) the need to address enforcement impacts of rising fuel costs. We have made these documents public because we believe they address problems that are not unique to North Carolina, and therefore may provide benefit to motor carrier enforcement personnel in other states as well.
Factors Affecting MCE Enforcement in the Coming Year(s).doc
MCE Data Elements, MOEs, and Collective MCE Goals.ppt
Preface to 2009 CVSP.doc
Expectations of Future Crash Patterns With Increased Access by Larger Vehicles (e.g., 53ft trailers) to NC and US Highways
The data in the Power Point slide (Fatal and Serious (A-level) Injury Crashes Involving CMVs as a Function of Class of Roadway (NC 2006-2007).ppt) reports CMV-involved crashes in North Carolina for the period 2006-2007 that involved fatalities (K) or serious (A-Level) injuries. The data are plotted as a function of whether the crash took place on an Interstate or on an NC or US-numbered route. Note the significant differences (as would be expected) between the types of crashes on Interstates and those on NC and US routes. Bottom Line: Expect to see more large TTT (i.e., 53ft trailer configurations) involved in theses types of crashes with the passage of the new legislation. Note, as before, approximately 75 percent of K+A crashes involving CMVs take place on US and NC routes; only about 25 percent on Interstates. And remember too that a crash involving a CMV on an NC or US route is approximately twice as likely to involve a fatality as one occurring on the Interstate (as might be expected given the type of crashes - i.e., head-ons, crashes involving vehicles turning in front of other vehicles such as at left turns, angle crashes associated with lesser levels of access control, etc.). These data, from 2006 and 2007, support the earlier estimate that if the new legislation were to result in a 'shift' of one third of heavy truck crashes from the Interstate to NC and US routes in NC, there could be an increase of as many of 20 additional fatal CMV-involved crashes per year on NC and US class roadways and a decrease of 10 fatal CMV-involved crashes per year on Interstate class roads (a net increase of 10 fatal CMV-involved crashes per year statewide).
Increasing Truck Sizes and Weights Threatens Safety and US Highways and Bridges
On July 9, 2008, Dr. Gerald A. Donaldson, Ph.D., Senior Research Director for US Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, made a presentation before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. The text of his presentation is given here (Donaldson's Testimony).
The portion of his testimony on the current state of North Carolina’s infrastructure is of particular interest in light of recent efforts (SB1695) to pass legislation permitting 53ft trailer access (and certain overweight exemptions) on NC highways statewide.
While amendments to SB1695 would now give NCDOT the responsibility to designate routes to be added to the Designated National Network (DNN) in North Carolina (as opposed to blanket legislative permission to do so), the bill points to the State’s critical need to develop infrastructure (and access) needed to accommodate increasingly larger and heavier commercial motor vehicles.
With these plans will come legislative responsibility to ‘finance’ these improvements, which will clearly be the hardest part of this process as it is for other states in similar situations.
Meanwhile, the NC State Highway Patrol (NCSHP), who expressed opposition to the bill in its initial form based upon safety concerns, is doing its part to address the safety risk associated what will be an inevitable shift of heavy commercial vehicles from the Interstate and other DNN routes to NC and US routes where the risk of a CMV involved crash involving a fatality is as much as twice that of a CMV crash on the Interstate. Specifically, the Patrol’s Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) is calling for more targeted CMV traffic enforcement on NC and US routes likely to be added to the DNN in the near future.
Its Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) for 2009 will contain measurable goals for reducing the risk of CMV related fatal and serious injury crashes on these classes of roadways and for shifting the influence future TACT efforts (referring to the FMCSA sponsored program on Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks) to NC and US routes.
ITRE Offers Suggestions to Improve FMCSA TACT Program.
North Carolina was among several states who, at the request of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), agreed to implement and evaluate the extent to which a media outreach/enforcement programmed called Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) might do for truck safety what NHTSA’s Click-it-or-Ticket and Booze-it-and-Loose-It programs had done for seat belt compliance and drunk driving, respectively. Early evaluation of the program by Washington State produced some favorable results. An overview of the TACT program can be found on FMCSA’s website at:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/tact/index.htm
The present document was prepared by ITRE as part of its invited participation in a TACT-Forum held in Las Vegas, NV in July 2008. (See ITRE Suggestions for Improvement of TACT Program (pdf)). ITRE’s suggestions address concerns about the effectiveness of the basic media component (in essence, an extension of the older No Zone media message), the extent to which it adequately addresses the ‘risks’ of smaller vehicles operating in close proximity to large trucks; but mostly, the extent to which a media campaign can be expected to produce a measurable, and sustained, change in driver behavior. Of course, that’s the reason for the enforcement component. ITRE’s concern in that area is the extent to which the enforcement component, at least as currently conceived, is sustainable – given the manpower intensive nature of its operation. ITRE offers suggestions as to how off-the-shelf, camera-based technologies can be applied to the unmanned detection of vehicle headways and speeds and how such information might be provided in real time to motorists (both cars and trucks) as a basis for the desired sort of behavior change. ITRE also suggests that such devices might be used to provide a more objective measure of the extent to which the TACT program is capable of bringing about a safer ‘spatial’ environment for the operation of cars and large trucks in a shared use roadway environment. ITRE presentation slides for the TACT Forum are also included here (see ITRE TACT Forum-2008 (ppt))
Alternative Approach to TACT Evaluation (and ‘Treatment’):
Some Additional NCSU/ITRE Thoughts and Suggestions
Rather than focusing on catching the ‘violator’ (the typical enforcement approach), and ‘alternative’ might be to focus on having an effect upon ‘conditions’ that are associated with ‘risky’ behavior; in the case of TACT, it’s a combination of speed and following distance (i.e., those instances where if one or the other of the vehicles were to have to stop, the other vehicle would not have adequate time to avoid a collision.
Evaluation in this case could involve continuous, automatic (unmanned) capture of vehicle speeds and following distances and the determination from those data, on an instance by instance basis, whether the event was ‘risky.’
Where you could make this determination in real time (as opposed to manual review of video data), you could provide this as real time ‘feedback’ to the driver (and to the traffic stream in general) via some sort of message sign (could be as simple as that used on a speed trailer).
Since the device that is monitoring the variable(s) can also be continuously capturing the data, a primary dependent measure and measure of program success can be the percentage of total following distances captured that are ‘risky.’ The measure can be further related to current traffic conditions (vehicle volumes, vehicle speed ranges, time of day, etc.)
This approach would make it possible to determine whether the ‘treatment’ was having an effect upon the ‘speed’ component of the risky situation, and/or the following distance component. One would expect that if ones treatment was effective in significantly reducing the frequency of risky events, it would also, over the longer term, lead to a reduction in either the frequency of crashes, the relative frequency of serious injury crashes, the reduction of rear end collisions, and/or the reduction of fatal crashes. This (automated) focus on vehicle speeds, following distances, and the like) is consistent with more traditional, manned emphasis on enforcement. One could even take a more strategic, longer term enforcement look at moving the ‘driver feedback’ approach to an automated (e-ticketing approach) if feedback alone without enforcement proved not to be sufficient in bringing about the desired change in conditions.
This method is most appropriate to conditions where you are looking at interventions for free flow traffic conditions. Where problems (e.g., those not on the interstate that deal often with access points with limited or no traffic control device other than stop/yield signage), the problem is often vehicles pulling out in front of trucks as the smaller vehicle attempts to cross the major traffic lane or to merge with it in the same direction (often results in collisions where the truck is cited for failure to reduce speed-often not an appropriate charge).
If one were to identify critical (high crash) locations where this occurs as treatment sites, one could install the same type of continuous, automated data collection capability (speed and arrival time of vehicle approaching on the main line). This information could be provided to the driver of the vehicle on the minor route as indication of a safe gap. It could also be provided to the vehicle in the major route as presence of vehicle on minor route – sort of an intersection collision warning device to use FHWA program nomenclature).
From an evaluation standpoint, the interest is whether the treatment (which in this case is also serving as the data collection device) detects a ‘risky’ situation (which may not always result in a crash, but which certainly increases the likelihood of a crash).
Both of these suggestions involve the integration of routine and continuous data collection methods with a treatment that involves direct feedback to motorists of risky conditions that logically are correlated with crashes. By also capturing speed as a component in the equation in addition to ‘distance’ they permit you to capture what might be a successful treatment effect on vehicle speeds where you may or may not also have a successful treatment effect on the ‘distance’ component (vehicle following distances in the free flow situation or time to arrival distance in the intersection case).
These ‘treatments’ represent interventions whose purpose it is to achieve a direct and measurable impact on some aspect of the traffic stream that is logically related to the type of crash situation that is the focus of the study.
The determination of whether a treatment has an effect upon ‘crashes’ per se must be determined in the longer term.
It is the type of treatment that comes into contact with every driver, unlike media-based treatments that have to be seen or heard to claim an effect and which deal more with factors like awareness and driver intent than they do actual driver behavior. That does not mean that a media component to TACT is not of value. It is just that ‘awareness’ of a problem while ‘necessary’ is not always ‘sufficient’ to bring about a change in the behavior of the target audience (evidence abounds in the public health field - efforts to modify eating, drinking, smoking disorders, etc.)
This can be a focus on a ‘truck problem’ (FMCSA) but can also be a broader focus on a ‘traffic management’ problem (FHWA). The two agencies should be equally involved in this effort, and should provide more of the technology support for the development and implementation of these types of technology-based treatment and data collection approaches. This type of technology development support should be done centrally, at a Federal level, and made available to the states for implementation.
The Increasing Need for North Carolina’s Surface Transportation System to Accommodate Larger and Larger Vehicles
(Any opinions stated or implied in the material below are those of the primary author, Dr. Ron Hughes, of the NCSU Institute for Transportation Research an d Education and not the NC Department of Transportation or the NC State Highway Patrol)
ITRE's commercial vehicle safety and security research group continues to support NC Highway Patrol's Motor Carrier Enforcement efforts to increase CMV awareness within other law enforcement agencies across the state of North Carolina. The material included here is a presentation made by Dr. Hughes as part of the CMV Awareness Training provided to Troops D and E and to those agencies identified as playing a major role in crash reporting in those troop areas. CMV Awareness Slides for Troops D and E.prior to AG ruling.ppt (ppt, 7.15 MB). A large component of this 'awareness' training focuses on the timeliness and accuracy of crash reporting and its relationship to FMCSA initiatives like CVISN (Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks). The presentations also emphasize the importance of CMVsize and weight enforcement.
 The CMV Awareness presentation to Troops D and E was made prior to a recent State Attorney General's ruling regarding 53ft trailer access to roadways in the state STAA-Truck-Crash-Data-Final-Report.pdf (pdf, 6.5 MB). It was also presented prior to efforts on the part of ITRE, the NCSHP, and the NCDOT to observe directly the impact of operating 53ft tractor trailers on roads added to the Truck Network as part of the Attorney General's ruling Field Observations of 53ft Semitrailer on New STAA Routes.pdf (pdf, 1.5 MB). To many, the operation of vehicles whose width and/or overall length exceeds their ability to remain between the center and edge lines of their own travel lane represents a serious safety concern. Irrespective of whether collisions with such vehicles result in fatalities or serious injuries they can also contribute significantly to congestion and delay associated with their removal from the roadway. These delays can also be a serious impediment to the response times of emergency medical services attempting to reach persons requiring immediate medical attention or transport. Opening up access to large and heavy commercial vehicles without regard to their impact on the infrastructure (pavement, posted bridges, etc.) also increases the rate of roadway deterioration and the cost of repair/maintenance.
In April 2008, ITRE was requested to provide the NCSHP with data from NCDOT's Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System (TEAAS) regarding the crash involvement of vehicles towing boat trailers. These data are provided below Boat-Trailer Crash data 2005-2007.ppt (ppt, 87 KB). The request was prompted by increased pressure from the owners of large boats and their freedom to move these vessels (increasingly over the present 102inch width requirement) without incurring the constraints of permits required for their movement. Whether vessels over 102 inches in width (8ft 6in) are used in commerce or for recreational use only, their movement on the highway is currently restricted (by permit) to operation during daylight hours only. No movement is allowed on Sundays and certain holidays (as stated in NCDOT Oversize and Overweight Permit Handbook available from the NCDOT Oversize/Overweight Permit Office in Raleigh, NC; also available on line at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/operations/dp_chief_eng/maintenance/permits/documents/
One should not attempt to infer from data showing that fewer than five percent of all such crashes involved trailers wider the allowed 102 inches that there is a relatively low likelihood of such configurations being involved in crashes. One cannot tell from these limited (crash) data anything about the relative crash risk of loads of this size. Aside from the ‘permitting’ issue it is clear that a more important issue is whether the vehicle towing a vessel of this size is properly equipped and licensed for the increased combined weight of the towing vehicle and the load being towed.
Is there a trend here?
The ruling by the State Attorney General’s office was prompted by pleas from the farming community as well as retailers for increased access for longer (53ft) vehicles, which each group claimed was increasing becoming the industry standard. Demands from the boating community and boat builders’ industry in the state was in part a ‘length’ issue, but in larger part, based upon the premise (of the boat owners, etc.) that boats should not be held to the same restrictions as commercial motor vehicles . . . but rather, as ‘recreational vehicles,’ they should be given special treatment.
ITRE has ‘no horse in this race.’ ITRE does not make public policy or draft legislation. ITRE does, however, feel obliged to render its opinion when it comes to highway safety. It is our opinion that any vehicle whose width exceeds that of the travel lane in which it operates is ‘too wide.’ Being too wide for existing conditions does not necessarily mean that it should be prohibited from those routes, but rather that special provisions (e.g., a permit, required escorts, time of day restrictions, etc.) may be needed to ensure its safe passage and that of others who share the road while it is en route.
Long (over length) vehicles, even when they do not exceed the restrictions imposed by the STAA legislation, have unique operating characteristics (e.g., off tracking) that may cause them to intrude into the on coming traffic lane or to experience intrusions over the edge line of the roadway. The report detailing the joint observations by the NCSHP, NCDOT, and ITRE of 53ft trailer operations in the western part of the state (on sections of US-64 and US-74A) provides diagrams from the AASHTO ‘Green Book’ on the minimum turning requirements of longer vehicles – specifically the minimum swept distance requirement of these vehicles when negotiating turns. It was clear from these limited observations that the minimum swept path distance of 53ft trailers often exceeded the width of the paved roadway surface.
Lo nger and wider vehicles (commercial and recreational alike), as well as heavier vehicles, are becoming more commonplace on our roads. This is a trend that seriously threatens the continued success of North Carolina over the past ten years in reducing the number of CMV-involved fatalities in the state. It is also a trend that threatens to worsen congestion in our already over-congested urban areas. Longer, wider, and heavier vehicles also put a serious strain on the state’s infrastructure and on the state’s ability to maintain that which is already has in place.
There is a serious need for joint action on the part of the commercial vehicle industry, state departments of transportation, legislative officials, and enforcement to devise effective long term strategies for dealing with theses trends. Using enforcement and legislation to restrict access as a means of prolonging the life of an already limited infrastructure is probably not the best answer. Neither is it prudent to think that the state DOT and taxpayers can overnight bring all roads up to interstate design standards. It is important that effective strategies for dealing with long term surface transportation needs be addressed in current state government planning efforts directed at a strategic statewide logistics plan. Some of ITRE’s efforts to address the growing problem presented by increased commercial motor vehicle presence are outlined in a recent document ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO MEET FUTURE FREIGHT DEMANDS IN NC21.doc (doc, 1 MB).
NC Truck Network– As of September 1, 2008
The following is the text of an email message from Mr. Tony Wyatt of the NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Division. The email provides information that the NCDOT was directed by the General Assembly to provide by September 1, 2008 showing (a) designated STAA dimensioned vehicle routes, (b) NC and US ‘primary’ routes now statutorily eligible for use by 53ft long trailers, (c) routes requiring additional study, and (d) routes with truck restrictions.
Good Afternoon,
Pursuant to Senate Bill 1695 (SESSION LAW 2008-221) the North Carolina Department of Transportation has updated the North Carolina Truck Network Map to reflect changes made as a result of the new law. The legislation made all primary routes (Interstate system plus all routes that start with NC or US - approximately 14,800 centerline miles) in North Carolina eligible for travel by tractor trailer combinations that use 53 foot long trailers.
The September 1, 2008 Updated North Carolina Truck Network map is now viewable online at NCDOT’s Information, Mapping & Graphics (IMG) Distribution page:
http://www.ncdot.org/it/img/DataDistribution/StatewideMaps/default.html
http://www.ncdot.org/it/img/graphics/NCTruckNetwork/NCTN_main.pdf (Note underbar between NCTN_main.pdf)
North Carolina’s Truck Network map continues to show designated STAA dimensioned vehicle routes in RED. The remaining Primary (US & NC) routes are shown on the updated routes as gray lines (routes now statutorily eligible for 53 foot long trailers). Dashed BLUE map segments are routes that are statutorily eligible for the 53 foot trailers but that are requiring additional study. Primary routes that have been identified with truck restrictions are shown with a BOLD BLACK line. Please note many of the segments identified as restricted pertain to “through” truck traffic and allow necessary local deliveries. Primary road segments with truck restrictions are listed in a separate companion table (North Carolina Truck Restrictions) available at:
http://www.ncdot.org/it/img/graphics/NCTruckNetwork/nctruckrestrix.pdf
The legislation that initiated the revisions to the NC Truck Network was signed into law on August 17, 2008. The Department of Transportation’s Traffic Engineering & Safety Systems Branch has aggressively conducted initial field investigations for the primary routes that were not initially part of North Carolina’s truck network. Due to the extremely limited time frame, these initial investigations are serving as the baseline for additional freight network analyses and recommendations through coordination with North Carolina’s State Highway Patrol, local law enforcement and municipality staff, and a full range of transportation and highway safety partners.
Thank you for your comments, suggestions, corrections, questions, and support. Please continue to contact us (State Traffic Engineer Kevin Lacy or Field Operations & Investigations Engineer Tony Wyatt) if you have any questions or if you want to contribute to future efforts to improve this important truck network reference tool.
A. D. (Tony) Wyatt
Traffic Engineering & Safety Systems Branch
919-773-2887
Senate Bill 1695 Info:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1695v9.pdf
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+1695
General North Carolina State Maintained System Mileage Info -
Source : http://www.ncdot.org/it/img/DataDistribution/RoadMileageReports/Sld2006/SummaryMileageTable.pdf
1,153.57 Centerline Miles of Interstate (include Business Loop designations)
5,572.34 Centerline Miles of US Routes
8,107.29 Centerline Miles of NC Routes
64,209.19 Centerline Miles of SR Routes
NCSHP Motor Carrier Enforcement Focuses `on the Shared Responsibilities of Law Enforcement for CMV Safety and Operations in Large, Metropolitan Areas
 In North Carolina, the NC State Highway Patrol (NCSHP) is responsible for motor carrier enforcement including both the traditional Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funded by FMCSA and the size and weight program funded from FHWA through the state DOT. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP), which is the annual roadmap for MCSAP funded activities, identifies as a target goal of CMV crash reduction efforts the FMCSA strategic goal of 1.65 truck involved fatalities per 100 million truck miles traveled. When NCSHP took on the motor carrier enforcement role from the NC Division of Motor Vehicles in 2003, the geographic scope of its crash reduction efforts were that defined by crashes documented (by NCSHP personnel) in its Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system.
Because NCSHP had traditionally defined its area of operations as that associated with roadways lying ‘outside’ major metropolitan areas (e.g, Wake, Guilford, Forsythe, Mecklenburg counties), troopers in general did not respond to, or document, crashes within the boundaries of those areas. Doing so was the agreed upon responsibility of local law enforcement agencies. When NCSHP recognized that its CAD data did not encompass the full geographic scope of CMV crashes defined by FMCSA in its strategic goal (although it was now held responsible for CMV crash reduction in those areas), it began an effort to provide CMV awareness training to enforcement agencies within those metropolitan areas who, in the case of those specific counties, were responsible for 50 percent or more of all CMV crash reports filed in those counties. To the extent that North Carolina continues to experience crash reporting ‘accuracy’ problems statewide (i.e., continues to a ‘RED’ state on FMCSA’s data quality map), and to the extent that these agencies, while responsible for a large percentage of reported CMV crashes had no formal CMV training, NCSHP began an effort to provide CMV ‘awareness’ training to those agencies. This training stops short of any intent to make these agencies CVSA-certified for the purpose of conducting formal roadside inspections.
The current presentation was part of the CMV Awareness Training presented to in July 2007 to law enforcement agencies in the greater Charlotte-Mecklenburg area and to those surrounding areas comprising NCSHP Troop H.
An expressed goal of the presentation was to help these agencies appreciate the importance of ‘correct’ and ‘timely’ CMV crash data; in particular, its importance to programs like CVISN (Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks) and to CVISN’s prominent role in FMCSA’s regulation of carrier operations into the future. The presentation also pointed out the uniqueness of Troop H and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area from the standpoint of the pattern of CMV crashes occurring in a large metropolitan area approaching 1 million in population. Specifically, CMV crashes were put into the context of a growing congestion problem in Charlotte as well as Charlotte’s place among the 50 most significant CMV bottlenecks in the country. Mecklenburg County is somewhat unique in that while it experiences the highest number of fatal CMV-involved crashes in the State, the likelihood of any given CMV crash involving a fatality is among the lowest in the state – i.e,. high numbers of minor/moderate injury and property damage only crashes, relative few fatalities, comparatively speaking.
The CMV awareness presentation also introduced local enforcement agencies to the notion of the STAA ‘truck network’ and to restrictions placed on trailers over 53 ft and on twin trailers off the defined network. Those in attendance were briefed on work currently being conducted by ITRE for the NCDOT on off-network crashes. Crashes were plotted against the STAA network and its 3-mile ‘buffer’ for the counties in Troop H. Crash types were identified for these areas and several clusters were identified and plotted against Google Earth aerial images. All officers in attendance were provided with 100ft open reel tape measures provided by the NC Governor’s Highway Safety Program (GHSP) with the specific request that they be used to obtain reliable trailer length and width information on crash reports – inasmuch as this information is often missing or unreliably entered on crash report forms.
Agencies were provided a job performance aid developed by NCDOT Traffic Engineering personnel showing the STAA routes on one side and the NC general statutes on the reverse side to be used in citing violations. This training also discussed the joint role of the state DOT in using these data to more effectively plan for critically needed expansions of the current network, and for the role of the ITRE off-network crash analysis data in helping prioritize those improvement needs.
 This same type of CMV awareness presentation is planned for agencies in the other major population areas of the state with the dual emphasis on ‘safety’ as well as CMV ‘operations’/congestion. To the extent that FMCSA shares the USDOT strategic objective of congestion reduction, we believe that this type of training, combined with its dual focus on safety and operations, as well as its use of current geo-specific crash data, is directly in-line with these types of state and federal objectives.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg CMV Awareness Presentation (ppt, 12 MB)
ITRE Recommendations for a Sustainable, Statewide Focus on Commercial Vehicle Safety.
In early 2006, the North Carolina Governor’s Executive Committee on Highway Safety established a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Working Group. This is a multi-agency and multi-disciplinary group made up of representatives from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the NC Governor’s Highway Safety Program (GHSP), the NC Trucking Association (NCTA), representatives from various trucking companies domiciled in North Carolina, representatives from the courts, local law enforcement, as well as representatives of the Motor Carrier Enforcement element of the NC State Highway Patrol (NCSHP).
ITRE, in its support of the NCSHP motor carrier enforcement program, was asked to provide input to the working group on what it believed to be the key elements of a sustainable, statewide, truck safety program. The presentation, delivered by Dr. Hughes, (provided below) is titled, "CMV Working Group Presentation." The presentation is, in essence, the same presentation delivered by Dr. Hughes to the Commercial Program Initiatives Committee of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) at its April 2006 conference in Hartford, Connecticut.
Presentation available in pdf format, titled, "Improving CMV Safety."
CMV Working Group Presentation (pdf, 2.24 MB)
For related information, go to: The Context for Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Activity in 2020 and to CMV Operations in North Carolina: Thinking Strategically
I-95 Corridor Coalition Funds Joint Volvo-NCSHP-NCSU-CVSA Effort to Address the Feasibility of ‘Wireless’ Inspection Capability for Commercial Motor Vehicles.
ITRE presented a brief conceptual overview of the notion of a ‘wireless’ (Wi-Fi/802.11) ‘concept’ for enabling motor carrier enforcement personnel to ‘inspect’ an en route commercial motor vehicle ‘wirelessly.’ An initial feasibility demonstration is scheduled for September 2006 involving vehicle-to-roadside communication of driver biometric data, elements of a simulated Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC) and selected truck system parameters. The ‘concept’ shows the potential for also being able to transmit from the vehicle to a ‘mobile’ site (e.g., enforcement vehicle) and how such information might be used to augment current/planned Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) capabilities as well as its interface to the notion of a Public Sector Reporting Center (PSRC).
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) presentation available in 2 formats:
AAMVA Presentation on Wireless (pdf, 1.5 MB)
AAMVA Presentation on Wireless as Microsoft PowerPoint file (ppt, 1.3 MB)
 CMV Overweight Citations by Type of Commodity
Beginning in FY07, the Motor Carrier Enforcement component of the NC State Highway Patrol (NCSHP) requested that ITRE extend the measurement,program evaluation, and GIS work being conducted for the state's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) to the area of motor carrier size and weight enforcement. MCSAP program funding is via the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); program funding for size and weight enforcement is via the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). While funded by two different agencies of the USDOT, MCSAP and size and weight enforcement represent integrated activities under the NCSHP Motor Carrier Enforcement Administration.
The document identified below provides a summary of size and weight enforcement data recently provided to NCSHP by ITRE. A primary focus of these data is on the type of commodity being carried by the cited vehicle. Data are summarized for calendar years 2004-2006 and are broken down by NC county as well as NCSHP troop.
The reader is reminded that these are 'citation' data, and while they may track general trends in overweight violations by commodity types, they do not necessarily represent the level of carrier compliance in this area. For example, the increase over time in the total number of overweight pounds does not necessarily reflect worsening compliance, but rather increased enforcement effectiveness in targeting overweight carriers.
 The lack of specificity in the description of citation 'location' makes it difficult to assign overweight activity to specific segments of specific routes. Recommendations have been made to have size and weight enforcement personnel utilize the same level of roadway description (i.e., on road, distance and direction from a reference road or intersection) as used in crash reporting.
A goal of the ITRE support in FY07 is to begin developing 'layers' in its GIS environment containing traffic count data, data on vehicle mix, pavement inventory information, and bridge data. Just as it is the Patrol's intent to utilize geo-referenced (GIS) crash crash data to better 'target' its CMV inspection and traffic enforcement activity, it is the intent of the Patrol to utilize infrastructure and operational data to better target size and weight enforcement activities.
An obvious sub-goal of this work is to determine the extent to which 'overweight' trucks are 'unsafe' trucks in terms of their likelihood of crash involvement. By using carrier level SafeStat 'scores' and indicators and carrier size and weight citation and commodity data, ITRE intends to work closely with the Patrol, the NC Trucking Associatoin, and with local FMCSA representatives to elevate this question to the 'carrier' level versus the individual driver or vehicle level.
Total Number of CMV Overweight Citations Issued by NCSHP (pdf, 12 KB)
Comparison of Rate of Increase in Overweight Violations (pdf, 17 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by Troop and Commodity, 2005 (pdf, 25 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by Troop and Commodity, 2006 (pdf, 27 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by Troop and Commodity, 2004 (pdf, 24 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by NCSHP Troop, 2004-2006 (pdf, 14 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by NC County, 2004-2006 (pdf, 26 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by Type of Scale Facility, 2004-2006 (pdf, 12 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by Day of the Week, 2004-2006 (pdf, 14 KB)
CMV Overweight Violations by Commodity Type, 2004-2006 (pdf, 24 KB)
Total Overweight Pounds and Average Overweight Pounds Per Vehicle, 2004-2006 (pdf, 11 KB)
2006 Citations (by Commodity Type) Relative to 2004 (Controlled for Increased Enforcement Over Time) (pdf, 15 KB)
Crash Data Analysis Sources
Truck Crash GIS Data is now updated on the following web site:
http://vams.itre.ncsu.edu/truckcrash
 The online capability, created by ITRE using ArcIMS, allows you to display the locations of fatal and/or non-fatal truck-involved crashes, by year. The location of NC truck weigh stations can also be displayed for reference as can roadways included in the 'truck network' as well as those included in the National Highway System (NHS).
Summary (table-based) crash statistics are available at the level of individual NCSHP troop districts and at the level of individual troops. Summary displays provide frequency data on number of crashes, by type of crash, by type of vehicle, by class of roadway, by whether the crash was speed-involved, alcohol-involved, or occurred in a work zone, level of injury severity, driver and weather conditions.
'Detailed' crash data (i.e., data for individual crashes) are available at the county level. Where crashes involve an interstate carrier with an assigned DOT number, a link is provided to SafeStat. SafeStat is an FMCSA on-line system that provides current information on the carrier in a number of different areas (accident, driver, vehicle, safety, etc.).
You an also display 'density' plots of fatal and/or non-fatal crash locations, by year. A simple query function is also provided for more refined searches. (Note: Each time you change 'layers' you must hit the 'refresh' button first). Using the tool bar displayed above the map, you can zoom in/out as well as pan up/down, left/right. The web-based application replaces the use of CD-ROMs as a means of providing users access to data.
The site is still in a developmental stage at this point. Preliminary instructions (pdf, 24 KB) on how to use the site are provided in lieu of an embedded Help function. Work is currently underway to include data on all 2003 truck-involved crashes in NC. The GIS on-line site will continue to be supplemented by the Online Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Tool.
|
