Table of Contents

• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Background on Deployment and Evaluation
• Goals of the ISSES Deployment Project
• Technologies Being Deployed
• Summary of Evaluation Goals and Objectives
• System Performance Evaluation
  • System Components, Configurations, and Outputs
  • System Performance Results
  • System Performance Conclusions
• Inspection Efficiency Evaluation
  • Summary of Safety Modeling Approach
  • Deployment Scenarios
  • Broader Definition of “Electronic Screening”
  • Summary of Safety Benefits/Inspection Efficiency Results
• User Acceptance and System Cost Evaluation
  • User Acceptance Results
  • Deployment and Operating Costs Results
• Conclusions and Implications
  • Overall Conclusions and Lessons Learned
  • System Performance Conclusions
  • Inspection Efficiency Conclusions
  • User Acceptance/Cost Conclusions
• References
• Appendix A. Points of Contact

Tables

• Table 1. Comparison of Laurel and Kenton station configurations.
• Table 2. 2005 crash statistics for Kentucky and nation.
• Table 3. Relevant national safety and safety enforcement statistics on large trucks.
• Table 4. High-level overview of roadside enforcement scenarios.
• Table 5. Estimated safety benefits of the ISSES and CVISN under selected deployment scenarios and assumptions.

Figures

• Figure 1. London, Kentucky, northbound I-75 weigh station (Laurel County).
• Figure 2. London, Kentucky, ISSES deployment.
• Figure 3. Kenton County ISSES site.
• Figure 4. Simpson County ISSES site.
• Figure 5. Layout of weigh-inspection station and traffic patterns at London, Kentucky (Laurel County) on northbound I-75.
• Figure 6. Inspector using the inspection shed at Laurel County station to measure brake stroke during a routine safety inspection.
• Figure 7. Example image recorded by overhead camera at the Laurel site.
• Figure 8. Laser scanner for triggering and classification (far right) and raised radiation portal monitors (left and center-right).
• Figure 9. Graphic representations of radiation monitor output for CMVs passing through the Kenton and Laurel sites.
• Figure 10. Location of thermal imaging video cameras at Laurel site, showing pan-tilt-zoom camera head.
• Figure 11. Images captured by thermal imaging video cameras at Kenton site, as replayed on DVR viewer.
• Figure 12. Two cameras used for ALPR subsystem.
• Figure 13. Rear view of USDOT number reader camera.
• Figure 14. Images generated by the ALPR system.
• Figure 15. Image generated by USDOT number reader.
• Figure 16. Viewpoint of evaluation team data collector observing nearby commercial vehicle traffic after passing through the ISSES portal at Laurel County.
• Figure 17. ISSES continuous monitoring interface, showing the “live view.”
• Figure 18. ISSES management interface, showing the server detail options at left.
• Figure 19. Series of images recorded by ISSES overhead camera at Laurel site on June 14, 2007.
• Figure 20. Image taken while contrast on the Kenton IR camera was improperly adjusted.
• Figure 21. Image taken from Kenton IR viewer after contrast adjustment.

Previous | Next

ITS Home | US DOT Home | Privacy | Feedback

United States Department of Transportation - ITS