Technical Report
For
Kentucky Commercial Vehicle Safety Applications Evaluation

U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC 20590

Contract No. DTFH61-02-C-00134
Task Order BA34018
FHWA-JPO-08-025

January 31, 2008

PDF Version 2.9 MB 
Get Adobe PDF Reader Here

Contents

• Acknowledgments
• Executive Summary
• Abbreviations
• 1.0 Introduction and Program Background
• 2.0 Goals of the ISSES Deployment Project
• 3.0 Technologies Being Deployed
• 4.0 Summary of Evaluation Goals, Objectives, and Hypotheses
• 5.0 System Performance Evaluation
  • 5.1 Data Collection
  • 5.2 Data Analysis
  • 5.3 Results
• 6.0 Inspection Efficiency Evaluation
  • 6.1 Objectives and Overall Approach
  • 6.2 Kentucky's Approach to Inspection Selection
  • 6.3 Field Observational Study Data Collection
  • 6.4 Characteristics of Truck Traffic at Laurel County Station
  • 6.5 Inspection Efficiency
  • 6.6 Safety Benefits
  • 6.7 Credentialing Data
• 7.0 User Acceptance and System Cost Evaluation
  • 7.1 Introduction
  • 7.2 Data Collection
  • 7.3 Data Analysis
  • 7.4 User Acceptance Results
  • 7.5 System Deployment and Operating Costs Results
• 8.0 Conclusions and Implications
  • 8.1 Overall Conclusions and Lessons Learned
  • 8.2 System Performance Conclusions
  • 8.3 Inspection Efficiency Conclusions
  • 8.4 User Acceptance/Cost Conclusions
• 9.0 References
• Appendix A. Points of Contact
• Appendix B. Interview Guide
• Appendix C. Interview Responses
• Appendix D. Prior Research on Infrared Brake Screening Technology for CMVs
• Appendix E. Maintenance Summary (April – August 2007)
• Technical Report Documentation Page

Tables

• Table 5-1. Comparison of Laurel and Kenton station configurations
• Table 5-2. Radiation portal monitor files generated during field studies
• Table 6-1. Kentucky Clearinghouse database fields as of September, 2007
• Table 6-2. Carrier and NORPASS pull-in rates for Kentucky OOS rate inspection selection algorithm
• Table 6-3. Times when USDOT numbers were captured from truck traffic passing through ISSES equipment
• Table 6-4. Truck traffic volume observed during field study
• Table 6-5. Distribution of carrier base state for observed field study trucks
• Table 6-6. Distribution of reasons e-screening participating trucks were required to pull-in to inspection station during field study
• Table 6-7. ISS values and recommendations
• Table 6-8. Comparison of ISS risk distribution for e-screening and non-e-screening Kentucky field study trucks
• Table 6-9. Comparison of ISS risk distribution for trucks bypassing station and trucks pulling into station using Kentucky screening criteria
• Table 6-10. Inspection selection efficiency at Laurel County station
• Table 6-11. Statewide OOS violation rates by risk category for inspections performed January 1, 2005, through September 13, 2007
• Table 6-12. Comparison of expected number of OOS orders per 100 inspections for Laurel County inspection station using ISS scores to define risk categories—random selection versus current inspection practices
• Table 6-13. Comparisons of expected number of OOS orders per 100 inspections for Laurel County inspection station using ISS scores to define risk categories—random selection versus electronic screening where medium- and low-risk carriers are allowed to bypass station
• Table 6-14. Risk distribution of field study truck traffic and trucks kicked out from inspection selection OOS rate algorithm
• Table 6-15. Kentucky inspection selection efficiency using OOS rates to define risk
• Table 6-16. Statewide OOS violation rates by OOS rate risk category for inspections performed January 1, 2005, through September 13, 2007
• Table 6-17. Comparisons of expected number of OOS orders per 100 inspections for Laurel County inspection station using OOS rates to define risk categories
• Table 6-18. 2005 crash statistics for Kentucky and nation
• Table 6-19. Relevant national safety and safety enforcement statistics on large trucks
• Table 6-20. High-level overview of roadside enforcement scenarios
• Table 6-21. Probabilities of certain OOS violations occurring among vehicles involved in a crash and among the general population of trucks
• Table 6-22. Vehicle and driver OOS rate threshold values calculated from Kentucky inspections from January 2005 through mid-September 2007
• Table 6-23. Vehicle and driver OOS rate threshold values along with corresponding probabilities of an OOS violation calculated from Kentucky inspections from January 2005 through mid-September 2007
• Table 6-24. Number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities avoided under scenario RE-4
• Table 6-25. Brake violation and driver OOS rate threshold values calculated from Kentucky inspections from January 2005 through mid-September 2007
• Table 6-26. Brake violation and driver OOS rate threshold values along with corresponding probabilities of a brake-related or driver OOS violation calculated from Kentucky inspections from January 2005 through mid-September 2007
• Table 6-27. Number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities avoided under scenario RE-5
• Table 6-28. Number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities avoided under scenario RE-6
• Table 6-29. Estimated safety benefits of the ISSES and CVISN under selected deployment scenarios and assumptions
• Table 6-30. Credentialing information in the Kentucky Clearinghouse
• Table 6-31. Comparison of IFTA credentialing status with ISS risk category
• Table 6-32. Comparison of Weight/Distance Tax credentialing status with ISS risk category
• Table 7-1. User acceptance interview question topics

Figures

• Figure 1-1. London, Kentucky, northbound I-75 weigh station (Laurel County)
• Figure 1-2. London, Kentucky, ISSES deployment
• Figure 3-1. Layout of weigh-inspection station and traffic patterns at London, Kentucky (Laurel County) on northbound I-75
• Figure 5-1. Example image recorded by overhead camera at the Laurel site
• Figure 5-2. Laser scanner for triggering and classification (far right) and raised radiation portal monitors (left and center-right)
• Figure 5-3. Graphic representations of radiation monitor output for CMVs passing through the Kenton and Laurel sites
• Figure 5-4. Location of thermal imaging video cameras at Laurel site, showing pan-tilt-zoom camera head
• Figure 5-5. Images captured by thermal imaging video cameras at Kenton site, as replayed on DVR viewer
• Figure 5-6. Two cameras used for ALPR subsystem
• Figure 5-7. Rear view of USDOT number reader camera
• Figure 5-8. Images generated by the ALPR system
• Figure 5-9. Image generated by USDOT number reader
• Figure 5-10.ISSES continuous monitoring interface, showing the "live view"
• Figure 5-11.ISSES management interface, showing the server detail options at left
• Figure 5-12.Lower configuration of radiation detection panels at Kenton ISSES site
• Figure 5-13.ISSES configuration at Simpson site
• Figure 5-14.Series of images recorded by ISSES overhead camera at Laurel site on June 14, 2007
• Figure 5-15.Image taken while contrast on the Kenton IR camera was improperly adjusted
• Figure 5-16.Image taken from Kenton IR viewer after contrast adjustment
• Figure 6-1. Total number of trucks and trucks per hour observed by data collector during each day of field study
• Figure 6-2. Daily number of total truck bypasses and bypasses per hour for second week of field study
• Figure 6-3. Daily number of inspections during field study
• Figure 6-4. Percentage of e-screening participating field study truck traffic that bypassed and pulled in to inspection station
• Figure 6-5. ISS risk distribution for Kentucky field study truck traffic as well as national risk distribution from SAFER
• Figure 6-6. Probit relationship between safety index and the probability of an OOS violation
• Figure 6-7. Vehicle and driver OOS rates for the nation and various states participating in Kentucky CVSA and national CVISN deployment evaluations

ITS Home | US DOT Home | Privacy | Feedback

United States Department of Transportation - ITS