Assessment of benefits for Advantage I-75

Assessment of benefits for Advantage I-75

Material Information

Assessment of benefits for Advantage I-75
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Highways--Interstate 75
Trucking--Canada ( lcsh )
Trucking--United States ( lcsh )
Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems--Canada ( lcsh )
Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems--United States ( lcsh )
letter ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
36068138 ( OCLC )
C01-00106 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.106 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00106
(OCoLC) 36068138
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
0 245
Assessment of benefits for Advantage I-75
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1992 March
4 610
Macdonald-Cartier Freeway (Ont.)
Advantage I-75 Program
Highways--Interstate 75
Trucking--United States
Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems--Canada
Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems--United States
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].


ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS FOR ADVANTAGE 1-75 prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Resea r ch Uni versity of South F loridaTampa March, 1992 This report has been prepared for and in cooperation with the State of Florida Department ot Transportation-Office of State Highway engineer, in f u lfillment of State Study No. 590, WPI No. 0510590 Stat e Job No. 997G0-7558-0t0, Contract No. C-3785, and CUTR Account No. 21 -1 7 055L.O The opinions findings and conclusions expr essed in this publication are those of the authors and not necess arily those of the State of Florida Departmen t of Transportation.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) would like to recognize and acknowledge several individ u als for their contribution to this report. George Herndon served as project manager for the Florida Department of Tran sportation Bill Mickler (FOOT-Office of Motor-Carrier Compliance), Jerry Pigman (Kentucky Transportation Center-overall ADVANTAGE 1-75 coordinator), and Jim Schmidt (JHK & Associates-general cons ultant for ADVANTAGE I 75) served as the primary project contacts and sources of information throughout the project duration CUTR gratefully appreciates the assistance and guidance provided by the aforementioned individuals Principal author of this report was Michael Pietrzyk, contributing authors were Thomas Miller and Michael Yates. Edward Mierze j ewsk i provided quality control assistance and project rev iew.


TABLE OF CONTENTS EXEClJTlVE SUMMARY I. PURPOSE II BACKGROUND A ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program B Key Issues Ill. INTRODUCTION A. Program Cotridor Description B General Tralllc and Trucking Characterlstlcs C. Weigh Station Charaelerlstlcs rv. COST BASEUNE FOR TRIJCt

UST OF FIGURES F igure 1 Program Corridor Figure 2 Average Daily Truck Volumes Figure 3 Weigh/Inspection Station Locations Figure 4 Truck Operating Costs Per Mil e Figure 5 Stopping and Id ling Costs Figure 6 Time Savings vs. Participat ion Rate Figure 7 Dollar Sailings vs Participation Rate Figure 8Accident Damage Costs (For Tennessee) Figure 9 Accident Rates at Weigh Stations LIST OF TABLES Page (follows page) 5 (follows page) 6 (follows page) 7 16 24 30 30 35 38 Paae Table 1 Florida Traffic Count Data on Interstate 75 10 Table 2 Florida Average Annual Motor Carrier Costs 13 Table 3 Florida Estimated State Regulatory Agency Labor Costs 14 Table 4 Suggested ADVANTAGE 75 Benefit Cost Parameters 19 Table 5 Weigh/Inspection Station Categorizat i on 21 Table 6 Estimated Total Travel Time Cost Savings 65 mph WIM 26 Table 7 Estimated Total Travel Time Cost Sailings 40 mph WIM 27 Table 8 Estimated Total Travel Time Cost Sailings 20 mph WIM 28 Table 9 Est imate d Travel Time Cost Savings 29 Table 10 H i storic Truck Accidents 39


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program represents an initiative to increase transport efficiency, improve safety, and enhance mobility along the 2,270-mile Program corridor from Miami to Sault St. Marie (along 1-75) and from Detroit to Montreal (along HWY 401-20). The first stage of the Program is implementation of automatic vehicle identification (A VI) technology to enable trucks to bypass subsequent weigh stations on a single trip after being properly certified at the first station stop. The primary purpose of this report is to document introductory research regarding the extent to which The ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program could be expected to reduce delay t i me for motor-carriers at weigh/inspection stations Other perceived benefits associated with accident reduction and reduced paperwork have also been evaluated. The annual costs for corridor-wide trucking operation has been estimated at $7.4 billion, with just over 5.6 billion annual truck-miles and 58 million total annual passes occurring through the 40 weigh/inspection stations Travel time cost savings for th ree possible future operating scenarios could result in a maximum (full participation) savings of $260m, $224m, and $130m, respectively. A more realistic estimate of the annual travel time cost savings, assuming 25% participation and 40 mph WI M off-line sorting, would approac h 20% of the gross operating margin for average motor-carriers, or about $60 million. The benefits of accident reduction would be minimal (approximately $45,000 per year) because of the relatively small number and history of low severity accidents within 1 /2 mile in each direction of weigh stations in the corridor. The benefits of paperwork reduction from the perspective of the state/province regulatory agency could reduce manpower by one at each station (or about $1 million per year). However, the i ndividua l motor-carrier could see increasing paperwork requirements/costs, and may resist adoption of paperwork automation until the benefits that positively impact their profit margins are quantified. Many areas requiring further data and research have been also identified by this report. It is recommended that these areas be explored and quantified, to the greatest extent possible, in order to more fully assess the benefits of the ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program. 1


I. PURPOSE The primary purpose of this report is to document preliminary research regarding the extent to which an Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) could be expected to reduce delay time for motor-carriers at weigh/inspection stations I n particular, potential benefits associated with reduced delay time are to be assessed and quantified. The overall objective of this F lorida Department of Transportat i on-sponsored research contract i s to provide an independent, ob j ective evaluation of perceived benef i ts. The evaluation contained in this report is also intended to contribute to the ongo i ng, corridor w ide effort to i dentify and quantify benefits that could be rea l ized for the ADVANTAGE 1-75 Progra m The basic outline of this report s erves as a foundation from w hi ch t o cont inue to identify and quantify addi t ional benefits tor the ADVANTAGE 1 75 P r ogram This report is not i ntended as an ex h aus t ive eva l uation of a ll potent ial benefits t hat coul d b e realized. For pur poses of t h i s report, perceived benefits addressed directly are: (a) travel t ime sav i n gs, (b) safety enhancement, and (c) paperwork reduction. Th i s report presents a brie f background of the ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program and o u tlines key i ssues as they relate to the potential benefits to be r ealized. A n introductio n to general program corridor chara ct eristics including trucki n g volumes and weigh/ins p ection sta t ion locations are also conta i ned in t hi s report. Travel time savings, sa f ety enhancement and paperwork reduct i o n have been def ined analyzed, and qua n tified to t h e greatest extent possible give n the natu r e magnitude and scope of this r esearch contract. As a base l ine fo r comparison of perceived b e n efits, costs genera ll y assoc i a ted with trucking operations h ave been developed tor the st a te of F lorida, and estimated tor the entire corridor. Additiona l ly, the major find in gs of the r eport are summar i zed and r ecommendat ions tor further research a n d analys i s are presen ted Finally, a detai l ed compilation of reference so u rces and data collected as part of t h is effort h as been included. The appendix of thi s r eport contains a p r oject contact l i st proposed motor carrier mail survey ques t ionnaire and ori g i n-destinat i on survey results f r o m a Rorida weigh station to be util i zed as future reference informa t ion. 2


II. BACKGROUND A. ADVANTAGE 1-75 PROGRAM The ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program represents a partnership of public and private, state and province interests in the 1-75/HWY 401-20 corridor. The Program also represents an initiative to increase transport efficiency, improve safety, and enhance mobility along the 2270-mile corridor. The main features of ADVANTAGE 1-75 are: (1) Emphasis on implementation, (2) Utilization of proven off-the-shelf technology, (3) Scale which is init ia lly small but incremen t ally expandable, (4) Maximum reliance on exi st ing state/province statutes and regulations, (5) Decentralization of control through a state/province partnership, and (6) Funding responsibility shared among federal, state/province, and pri vate sec tors. The f irst component of the ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program is a motor-carrier element which will deploy advanced technology at weigh/i nspection stations t o i mprove motor-carrier product i vity and to achieve more efficient state/province tr uck monitor in g o perations The initial objective of this element is to reduce delays encountered due to multip l e t ruc k weigh station stops within the corr i dor. The centra l t heme of the motor-carrier element is ear l y imp lementat ion of proven automatic vehicle id entification (AVI) technology t o enable A VI-equ i pped t ru ck s to bypass subsequent weigh stations on a single tr ip after being certified as being lega l at an initia l weigh stat i on The examination of o p erat ing credentials, when nec essary for pre-clearance at the downstream station, can be accomplished by computer. The ove ra ll concept is inte nded t o focus and build on the impo rtant characteristic of de centralized control and management Each state/province would maintain its d istinctive motor-carrier database, making minor changes only as necessary to accommo date common informat ion needs. Under ADVANTAGE 1-75, each state/province woul d retain it s trad iti o nal responsibility and authority for motor-carrier mon it oring and enforcement activities Over time, more extensive enhancements w ill be undertaken. 3


These enhancements will support trucking productivity and governmental monitoring efficiency, as well as improve the travel mobility and safety of other motorists. The AOVANT AGE I 75 Program serves as a national model of a cooperative partnership between state and federal governments, private industry, and academic institutions. Ultimately, this P rog ram w ill also be a major factor in the restructuring and modernization of commercial vehicle operational efficiency and monitoring. B. KEY ISSUES Benefits of ADVANTAGE 1 to motor-carriers Q.e., faster delivery t ime, lower operating costs, and fue l savings) are expected to result from reduced stopping. While the savings would be small for any single stop, the accumu l ation of benefits is expected to be significant for frequent users of the corridor. The traveling public i s also expected to benefit through reduced congestion and enhanced salety in the vicinity of enforcement stations. Weaving should be less as f ewer trucks would be required to exit and re-enter mainline traffic. Also. each bypassing t ruc k would lessen the probability of a queue backing up to t he mainline. Reduced paperwork and increased unifor mity are expected consequences of future technological advancements, and the dialogue made possible by the ADVANTAGE partnership. ADVANTAGE 1-75 will focus considerable attention on off-roadway obstacles to efficient motor-carrier operations, espec ially those caused from non-uniformity and voluminous paperwork requirements. States/provinces and the motor-carrier industry will be expected to embrace the ADVANTAGE 1 concept. Trip data must be generated, transmitted and shared by each state/province in the screening that precedes pre-clearance decisions and real-time checking of motor-carrier operating credentials. Each state/province is expected to accept the concept that truckers unde rgo no more than a single roadside weighing/inspection in that state/province. 4


Participation in ADVANTAGE 1 -75 also entails a financial commitment by the states/provinces and the trucking industry All must be convinced that the investment will be worth the cost. The most significant benefits of ADVANTAGE 1-75 are expected to be long term. Under the advocacy of ADVANTAGE 1 -75, all users of the corridor would become the beneficiaries of the applications of progressively more sophisticated technology in the highway environment. Ill. INTRODUCTION A. PROGRAM CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION The ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program corridor spans the distance of Interstate 75 from Miami, F l orida no rth to Sault St. Marie at the upper tip of Michigan approximately 1, 760 miles. Additionally, the Highway 401-20 connection ties into 1-75 at the Detroit international border crossing, and continues approximately 510 miles northeasterly to the boundary of the province of Quebec. Highway 401-20 serves as the principal east-west tra nsportatio n corridor throu gh the province of Quebec. Figure 1 illustrates the ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program corridor. As can be observed f rom Figure 1, the Program corridor intersects with 20 other U.S. interstate highways and six major Canadian highways, traversing six states and two Canadian provinces. The corridor also passes through 14 major metropolitan centers, in Canada and the U .S., with an a ggregat e population of abo ut 20 million residents. I nte rstate 75 (or the "Expressway" as it was known locally) was born in Atlanta in 1949, five years before the federal government started paying for the interstate system. By 1987, Forbes magazine wrote that, "1-75 symbolizes America's industrial renaissance .. .in recent years it has attracted an estimated 15 percent of America's capital spending on manufacturing, and the dollars keep coming." Additionally, "the Japanese have put about one-fourth of their direct U .S. investments along 1-75." 5


.,. ..... 1 90,1.0 1$ ............. OHIO KENTUCKY KENTUCKY TENNESSEE N GEORGIA V k:fOIII FLORIDA T1mp.1 B tedenlon S it-U. I Mil"'i F i gure 1 ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program Corridor CUTA


B. GENERAL TRAFFIC AND TRUCKING CHARACTERISTICS Total traffic for the ccrridor is generally under 40,000 vehicles per day for most of the intercity and rural portions. Approaching the larger cities, total traffic reaches or exceeds 100,000 vehicles per day, with a high of over 320,000 vehicles per day along HWY 401 through Toronto. The ADVANTAGE 1-75 corridor is one of the longest cont inuous high volume truck i ng ccrridors in the ccuntry. Average daily truck volumes (not including buses, pick-up tr ucks and vans) range from 400 near Sault St. Marie to about 20,000 near Toronto. Other relatively high daily truck volume areas along the ccrridor occur between Cincinnati and Day1on (12,000-15,000), and between Chattanooga and Atla nta (8,000-12,000). Throughout the entire ccrridor leng th, the average daily tru c k volume is about 5,000 vehicles. Tru cks comprise a significant portion of the total traffic on most segments of the ADVANTAGE 1-75 corridor. Typically, outside major city areas, trucks constitute between 20-35% of the to ta l daily traffic. The percentage of truck traffic varies from about 5% near Sault St. Marie to almost 43% ne a r the Ontario/Quebec border along HWY 401-20. The distinction between trucks and heavy tr ucks in the corridor is also a s i gnifican t characteristic. Heavy tr ucks (5-axle and above) make up over 90% of all t r u cks at Quebec, an d ranges from 80-88% through most of the corridor. However, t hrough southern Georgia the percentage of heavy trucks drops to abo ut 75% and declines f u rther t o about 70% through Florida. Based on a truck tr ip length survey conducted by each state and Ontario, and compiled by the Kentucky Transportation Center, the average mileage (along the corridor) per t rip was about 228 miles with almost 78% of the sampling passing through two or less states A tota l of 1,395 truckers were surveyed at six weigh stations (one in each state). F igure 2 depicts daily trucks and percent trucks of total traffic. The origin-destination survey conducted in Florida is contained in the appendix of this report. 6


400(4.4%)/ ..... .... 8,000 (8.9%) --;: 12,000 (10.3%) KENTUCKY 5,500 (26.2%) ,600 (38.0%) 4,900 (23.3%) "' Leritlglon ----5,500(11.0%) ... TENNESSEE 11 ,600 (20.7"'' 1/ 6.000 (22.2%) -- 6,41JO (42.6%) rr===========,l KEY FOR TRUCK VOLUMES ;i ---------!1 xxxx = average d a il y truc k 'JCiumes (xx%) =percent truek s of to tal r a ffle F igure 2 ADVANTAGE 1-75 Average Daily Truck Volumes CUTA il i


C. WEIGH STAnON CHARACTERISnCS The ADVANTAGE 1 corridor contains a total of 40 directional weigh/inspection stations. Twenty-six stations are located along 1, 13 in each direct i on. Fourteen stations are located along HWY 401 seven in each direction. Twenty-four of the 40 weigh stations (60%) currently have or are planning for some degree of weigh-in-motion (WIM) technology. A comparative genera l categorization of each weigh/inspection station (in terms of type of operation, length of ramps, and extent of back-upjwave-by) is contained in Section VI.A of this report. Most of the stations are relatively close togethe r. The average distance between successive stations in the same direction is about 112 miles. The areas with the greatest distance between successive weigh/inspection stat i ons are i n Geo r gia and F lorida. Figure 3 illustrates all 40 weigh/ i nspect i o n station locations along the ADVANTAGE 1 -75 Program corri dor. IV. COS T BASEUNE FOR TRUCKING OPERATIO N S A. FLORIDA ESTIMATE Background A genera l baseline" for trucking costs i n the state of Florida suitab l e for gener i c application to other states and prov i nces along the 1 -75/HWY 40120 corridor, i s discussed in this section of the report. As corridor-level truck ing costs are developed (see Section IV.B) they will be compared to the benefits and costs of IVHS implementation to determine the potential magnitude of IVHS application in t he 1-75/HWY 401-20 corri dor. Interstate 75 in Florida is approx i mately 465 miles, which includes the 78 m i le, State Road 84 { Alligator Alley") between Nap les and Miami, soon to be re designated as I nte r state 75 "Alligator Alley" is present l y a toll facility that charges 50 cents per axl e at each end of the facility. The majority of Interstate 75 in Florida is a 4 lane facility and predominate l y rural in nature 7


.... St ..... 23,24 18 TENNESSEE ... ,. 1S OHIO KENTUCKY 17 1 .. -15,16 I( J'IO)I\till -13,14 """"-!' -!4(_ .. TENNESSEE 11 FLORIDA N S I .. O\a s .. ... m (1\'11 ... 33 35 34 7,8 1,2 u ...... l KEY FOR STATION LOCATIONS 1,2. 3 ,4 5,6. 7,8. 9,10. 11.12. 13,14. 15,16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 ,22. 23,24. 25,26. 27,28 29,30. 31,32. 33. 34. 35. 36,37. 36. 39,40. Punta Gorda ;,;harlotle) Wildwood (SUOliOf) White Springs (Hamilton) Lowndes { L o.vndes ) Monroe Catoosa (Catoosa) Knoxville (Knox} London (Laurel) Georgetown (Scott) N8 only Kenton (Kenton) SB on1y Findlay (Hancock) 58 only Walbridge ( Wood) NB onl y Erie (Monroe) Pontiac {Oakland) Bridgeport {Saginaw) Windsor (Essex) Putnam ( M iddlessex) I n p ol ,. " 'I !i il I i Trafalgar ( Wellington 1 Whitby {Durham) 58 ont y 1 1 1 Bowmanville t Ourham) NB only Wesleyvill2 t,Ourham) Exrt EB onl y 1 Prescott {Grenville) NB onl y Lancaster (Stormont} Figure 3 ADVANTAGE 1-75 Weigh I Inspection Station Loc ations L CUTR


Of the 22 total statewide weigh/inspection stations in Florida, three are located along 1-75. The northernmost station (WMe Springs-Hamilton County) is located approximately 25 miles south of the Georgia/Florida border. The northbound and southbound operations and layout of this station are considered to be functionally obsolete. The White Springs station also serves as the only agricultural inspection station along 1-75. The centrally located, two-way, inspection/weigh station (Wildwood-Sumter County) h as been closed fo r the last four years primarily because of a structural failure of the static scale system. Located just north of where the Florida Turnpike intersects 1-75, the Wildwood station is approximately 115 miles south of the White Springs station. The southernmost station (Punta Gorda-Charlotte County) also contains both northbound and southbound weigh/inspection operations, and i s located approximately 175 miles south of the Wildwood stalion and about 160 miles from Miami. The closed Wildwood station is ident ical in operational configuration to the Punta Gorda station. All three stations perform static weighing only, as the WIM f ea tures both at Wildwood and Punta Gorda are n ot f unct i oning The Wildwood station, currently being reco nstructed is scheduled fo r completion by October, 1992. The stations at Wh i te Springs and Punta Gorda are currently under redesign. Following redes ign, all t hre e stations will have essentially the same configuration and be equipped with f ull WIM sorter operations as well as 2100-foot queue storage ramps. The White Springs station will also be relocated several miles to the north in order to be completely separated operationally from the agriculture inspection station. Hours of operation at the White Springs station are 24 hours a day, seven days a week but closed o n the nine state holidays. The Punta Gorda station operates about 10%-20% less than the White Springs station because of the reduced available manpower in that enforcement district. The Florida Department of Transportation-Division of Motor-Carrier Compliance had a tota l of 240 employees and a budget of approximately $6.5 million in 1990. Employee classification breakdown for the Division includes: three scale technicians, 60 weight inspecto rs, 13 clerical workers, and 164 officers and officer supervisors. 8


Methodology Florida truck ing costs for t990 on Interstate 75 have been defined as those costs i ncurred by the motor-carriers _goQ those costs attributed to Florida's weigh/inspection enforcement activities. Motor-carrier costs are a factor of truck mileage driven and the fixed and variable costs during 1990. State agency (FOOT-Division of Motor-Carrier Compliance) cost is a based on labor, maintenance, and cap ital depreciat i on. (Reconstruction costs expected i n the near future have also been noted separately for information purposes only). Motor-Carrier Costs Truck miles driven in F lorida dur ing 1 990 along Interstate 75 have been estimated from FOOT continuous traffic count and classification reports For t his analysis, Interstate 75 has b een categorized by three distinct segments, each with an annua li zed average d aily (total) traffic volume and annualized average daily percent of trucks Trucks have been defined to inc l ude a ll vehic l es !:XCept motorcycles, passenger ca rs, buses, p ick-up t rucks and vans. The f i rst segm ent {36 m i les) is that portion of Interstate 75 north of Int e rstate 1 0. T h e second segment (104 miles) is that port i on of Interstate 75 between I nterstate 1 0 and t h e Florida Turnpike. The th i rd segment (325 miles} i s that portion of In t erstate 75 sout h o f the Florida Turnp i ke to Miami. Extensive motor carrier origin-destina ti o n surveys are not avai l ab l e with i n Florida portion of I n terstate 75. Therefore 1 990 truck-miles had to be est i mated. T ab l e 1 summarizes the estimation procedure. 9


Table 1 Florida Traffic Count Data on Interstate 75 Count Station MDT' Awrag .MnuaJ Mr. Annual .Mn'* T r udt1,t AnouaJ Ttuek Number, (t.Deation) Daily l'tRO

(1) truck class is a 5-axle tractor semitrailer (2) tractor /trailer unit age is 5 years Q.e., used) (3) truck total annual mileage is 100,000 miles (4) truck is not owner-operated As a point of reference, the vehicle classification data utilized for this analysis indicated nearly three out of every five trucks in 1990 along Interstate 75 were 5-axle, tractor semitrailers. Average annual costs for the motor-carrier include the following: (a) tractor depreciation ($76,000 new, 10-year life) (b) trailer depreciation ($25,000 new, 10-year life) (c) interest payments (assuming 25% down payment, with 1 7% loan tor 60 months) (d) license plate and fuel permit (e) Federal Highway Use Tax (f) insurance (liability, bobtail liability, property damage, and coll isio n coverage) (g) in-frame overhaul (at 5 years) (h) set-aside (down payment) for vehicle replacement Average annual variable costs for the motor-carrier include the follow ing: (a) preventive maintenance program (1-year) (b) radial t ires (c) repairs (d) fuel (5 miles per gallon @ $1.05/gallon) (e) tolls (insignificant because of low truck volumes along "Alligator Alley") (f) driver food/lodging (260 days @ $50/day) (g) driver salary (Florida average @ 40,000/yr) 11


In order to obtain the total estimated 1990 average annual motor-carrier cost (per truck), total fixed and variable costs were added together. Therefore, it can be assumed that the cost of operation for the average truck was $101,510 in 1990. Funhermore, it can be assumed that average annual total truck m ileage In Florida was 100,000 miles, the average cost per truck was 11.015 per mile. Consequently, total estimated 1990 motor-carrier costs along Interstate 75 can be calculated by multiplying 1990 total truck-miles along Interstate 75 (1.18 billion truck-miles) by the 1990 average truck cost per mile ($1.0 15 per mile), or 1 1.19 billion. Table 2 summarizes all fixed and variable costs for the average Florida motor-carrier in 1990. State Agency Costs The FOOT-Division of Motor-Carrier Compliance provided the 1990 state agency costs required for weigh/inspection enforcement aC1ivities along I nterstate 75. These costs include labor, maintenance, and capital depreciation of equipment. It i s imponan t to reiterate that only two of the three weigh/inspection stations a l ong Interstate 75 were operating during 1990. Also, labor costs by specific loca t io n are somewhat difficult to estimate because the "ideal" station staffing does not exist every day. The ideal staffing i s defined as one person in eac h direction for weighing one person in each direC1ion for writing citations, and one person in each di re ct i on serving as inspeC1or. As a result, labor costs have been proponioned by FOOT-Div isio n of Motor Carrier Compliance, according to l eve l of activity and local distriC1 staffing availability Estimated state agency labor costs for 1990 are summarized in Table 3. 12


Table 2 Florida Average Annual Motor-carrier Costs FIXED COSTS TradDr llop

Table 3 Florida Estimated State Regulatory Agency Labor Costs Labor Coot WhHo Spings Punta Gorda -Station Solari ... _.,_ $120.890 $61.404 $46,677 $0 (no officers) T.ehnieiana $6,!95 $9,892 T ota1 Salarite $17&. tei S71l.296 Bon-(x 0.30) $64,829 $21.088 T ota1 Salaries & Bentlts $230,998 $91..385 o-t>ead (>< 0.10) $23,099 $9,138 TOTAL COST OF PEI

Total state agency maintenance costs in 1990 tor Interstate 75 weigh/i nspection operations were $9.300 (1990 was not a typical year for state agency maintenance costs because of the Wildwood Station closure). Annual costs for maintenance have varied significantly over the last several years, according to the FOOT-Division of Motor-Carrier Compliance, and thus typical maintenance costs cannot be determined. Capital depreciation of equipment has been determined tor this analysis. The White Springs S1ation Is considered to be a "cost liability" because it has long been functionally obsolete according to the FOOT-Division of Motor-Carrier Compliance. The Punta Gorda and Wildwood station coS1s for equipment were about $200,000 for each S1ation, four years ago. Assuming a 5-year functional life for equipment and straight line depreciat i on, the 1990 capital depreciation for both stations was $80.000. Consequently, the !Q!l!! estimated 1990 state agency costs for Interstate 75 weigh/ i nspection operat i ons can be determ i ned by add ing the labor ($354,600), maintenance ($9,300), and capital depreciation costs ($80,000), or $443.900. For information purposes only total station reconstruction cost for the Wildwood stat i on has been estimated at $3.5 millio n (1990 dollars). Finally previously mentioned info r mat i on can be utilized to determ ine orde r -of-magn i tude state agency costs per station or per emp loyee. Since t here a r e 22 sta t ions statewide {but on l y 2 1 were operable in 1990) and the state agency t otal operating budget for 1990 was $6.5 million, the average cost per station was approximate l y $310,000 and the average cost per employee was approximately $27,000. In summary, 1990 Florida trucking costs on Interstate 75 h ave been determined b y adding the estimated motor car r ier costs in 1 990 ($1.19 billion) and the es t imated state agency costs in 1990 ($443,900). In 1990, S1ate agency costs i n Florida were insign i f i ca n t compared to the motor-carrier costs. There f ore, 1990 Florida trucking costs on I nterstate 75 were approximately $1.19 billion A comparison of several1990 Florida truc k ing cost components to 1990 national average trucking cost components have been summarized in F igur e 4. Nat i ona l average cost 15


components f or 1 990 were ootained from lhe American T ru cking Assoc i ation. The difference between Florida and n at i onal trucking costs per mile is illustrated by the selected cost components highlighte d i n Figure 4 FIGURE 4 Truc k Operaung Costs Per M ile Total cost _. 0.044 ln&urance :J 0 _033 A 0 .041 epa r s 0.066 J In-frame overhaul ; \l,ooa Fuel Regulatory cost _. 0 .00 0.03 0 0 2 0.4 0 6 0.8 Dollars .2 Nat i onal Average 'lm Flor ida {1-75 only) Reoutetory eottl lnc lud:ee: tuel uee taa lletne r1QI1trat1on. opratlon authority permit. and use pltmlt, B. CORRIDOR-WIDE ESTIMATE A gauge of lhe economic va l ue of th e truck ing enterpr ise a l ong t h e ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program corridor can be determined by exam1ning the total cost of motor carr ier operat i ons. Total motor-carr ier costs, based on t otal estimated truck-miles oi travel we r e developed by JHK & Associates from several sou r ces. The Florida estimate, outlined above. provided the general foundation for this corr i dor-wide estimate. Add i tional operating cost data were obta i ned from the American Trucking Associat i on and the O n tano Trucking Association.


Estimated annual truck-miles for the corridor was developed by JHK & Associates In a manner similar to that followed in the Florida estimate. Just over 5 6 billion annual truck miles were calculated for the total corridor. Florida, Georgia, and Ontario each have in excess of 1 billion a year, while Michigan was estimated to have the lowest with about 250 million truck-miles a year. Total annual U.S. truck-miles is 4.09 billion, and Canadian is 1 55 bilnon. An average unit operating cost of $1.07 per mile was utilized for this estimate for U.S. operations, and $2.03 per mile was taken for Canadian operations. Therefore, the aggregate motor-carrier operating cost estimate is $7.4 billion per year, or an average of about $1.31 per truck-mile. The magnitude of this annual corridor-wide trucking ac t ivity provides a basis from which to measure potential benefits of IVHS impleme ntatio n at weigh/inspection stations V. DEFINITION OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS A. TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS Travel time savings, for purposes of th i s report, has been defined as the anticipated reduced stopping and idl ing costs, and potential lost revenue captured for motor-carriers ass ociated with automation of weigh station operations. Cost sav i ngs for reduced stopping and id ling include both the value of driver's t i me and vehic l e operations (wear and-tear, fuel consumption, etc.). Cost savings for potential lost revenue captured is based on typical operating margin per unit of t ime delay. Travel t ime savings is determined for several operating scenarios of improved operations compared to existing corridor-wide operations. B. SAFETY ENHANCEMENT Safety enhancement, for purposes of this report, has been defined as the potential cost savings associated with reduction in vehicular accidents (within 1 /2-mile in each direction of all weigh stations) attributable to improved operations at weigh stations. I t has been 17


assumed that automation of weigh station operations will permit a large degree of station by-passing, significantly reducing the occurrence of truck weaving/conflicts in these areas, and thus minimizing the probability of vehicular accidents. C. PAPERWORK REDUCTION Paperwork reduction, for purposes of this report has been defined as the potential cost savings associated with red uced of paperwork and operating credentials at weigh stations due to the automat i on of operations. D. OTHER BENEFITS ADVANTAGE 1-75 is envisioned as an incremental process in which progressively more advanced technology (beyond A VI) is installed as it becomes available for imple mentat i on As ADVANTAGE 1-75 develops into an effective public-private partnership, increasing benefits will also be realized. Several other potential benefit areas, besides those noted above, are listed below as a guide line for future evaluation. Finally, to assist in future evaluations, Table 4 has categorized suggested parameters tor all anticipated benef it s versus costs by ADVANTAGE 1-75 user category. Lower prices to the general public as a result of more efficient movement of goods Increased data collect ion and information sharing for planning, registration/permitting, emergency response, enforcement, and revenue collection Improved me-way communications between states/provinces and truckers Real-time travel condition monitoring to improve tr ipmaking for all motorists in the corridor 18


TABLE4 Suggested ADVANTAGE 1-75 Benefit/Cost Parametet's I-7S U..r C.tegQIY lnltiel Bttlefltl .. .,..eo... Pottlntlal Potential Costa Gen6fal Mototist congettlon reduetlon, none r ea).titne tri p none (aumtd to b e accident i nlormatlon otf.vehfcle oommutlleatlon $'f$t9M$) MotOt C&I'rltt'$ tii'M SIVinQ$. trtMponcfetS vehic l e compute r accide n t reduction rtgi r.tratio n and audio{vlsuaJ d isplay reduced fuel logi;, tM>way, reat eonsumption, ffNI$( tltnt comm u n iea1ions people invo lved in with home office. t ieensit\9, monitorin g of V1f'l i ere regiS'terlng and l oeatlons, fewer erro r s reponing i n paptt'WOrk, anti theft device for tracto r and ttai ltt, routing/guidance s ys1ems, avoidance StatesjPrOVineu ttdueed (o r Mot$ .,quipment cosu mQf'l itQI'ing ous dt<;entralized eliminated) eos1 IIX eargo m ovements ($(o1tewide) new 01 reconstructed eomm unkatlon s and of s u tve illance a n d weiig h flnspec1 ion computer ayawm) e n forcemen t and continuous stations, manpower compliance i nformatio n reduction m o re fuel capabilitiu Q31heting ce n ters. tax and reg i stfation excl u sive of weig h fees collected s1a1ion ltf mi.nal s rtdueed ...ehk:Se mi.uions Assumes F!tt&l 1ncl pri'4le funding p.lrtieipation 19


VI. ANALYSIS AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS A. TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS Methodology The estimate of trave l time savings has been developed based on previous corridor-wide truck travel characteristics determined by JHK & Associates and the Kentucky Transportation Center. Unit cost methodology has been derived from the AASHTO Manual on User Benefit Analysis. Specifically, the following characteristics have been assumed for truck travel in the ADVANTAGE 1 Program corridor: 5.64 billion annual corridor truckmiles 227.85 i nterstate miles (avg.) per truck-trip 24.7 million annual truck trips (5.64 billion miles/227 85 miles per t rip) 2.35 (avg.) weigh stations passed per truck trip 58 million annual passes through weig h stations (24.7 million t ri ps x 2.35 stations passed per trip) For discussion purposes, t hree future weigh station ope rating scenarios are compared to existing weigh stat ion operations to determine the potential range of t r avel time savings. The three operating scenarios are: (1) 65 mph WIM (I. e., total by-pass along main l ine) (2) 40 mph WIM sorting off-mainline, and (3) 20 mph WIM sorting off-mainline. The 40 existing weigh/inspection stations have been generally categorized by processing type as described in Table 5. It can be observed in Table 5 that four basic types of processing operations currently exist, and these four operating types are generally spread equally among the 40 weigh/inspection stations The four existing operating types vary by extent of WIM c apabilit ies and approximate ramp lengths. Existing weigh station inventory was based on site plans and telephone interviews of operations personne l at selected weigh stations (see Appendix). Travel time savings expected from each of the three future operating scenarios were compared to the Table 5 existing conditions. 20


....... ._... lWdrooood!Fll. H8loS8 .....,. N8&S8 c-IQ.'J. HMS8 NBUB I..Dtldotlf(Y}, Mt&.$8 $8 only S8 on!)' NB&$9 PoneiutM9 Na&.SS Wi...o-tof'll), EB&WS re,awa EB&WS Wlll!byj()NT), W8 oft! BooomVMIIel'Ofl'l'), EB only &II E8 tidy E8 NY _,..we TABLE 5 Weigh/Inspection Station Categ o rization ,.... "++ ....... ....... v ....... ,....... ........... &.4-UpJw-81 --.., -"6*'-'J*f ""' ------..---... .... ,. __ "'" -..... 30...,.,WIW "'" ,_ )O.....,,WIW "'" 7,100 --.... dliily .-y 1 5-20....., 7,700 t O ft'lpl\, WIW "'" ..... WIN .... .. ,_,4""1 1$,000 Wll.l "'" -..... mpi\. IOIIowf ... .... $ ""lA 10110\oW ... 2 3 11,.,._ / G.-y ..... t SMjlol\. Wll.l .... 1 211mM/fN>n lll ., complott"Of' ... .,... '"" (oOI!I.,.. .sop ... ..... '"" '""' '"" ""' -'"" Vl'lol ""' .. ..n .. WIN ""' 1$ tnph, WIN .... ... $ ._Jtly .,.. '""' ...,., , .... .... ""' ..... ""' rr _..,._. 0 ----0 A A A "" ... "" CoO 0 0 c c ..... A B AO oc a.c oc a .c s ee Table 5 notes on the next page tor exp l anation of each col u mn heading. 21


TABLE 5 NOTES: 1990-91 volumes at approximate vicinily ol weigh station Weigh-in-motion capabilily vs. sta!lc/roller scales. Storage capabilily o1 ramps in feet During hours of operation, and approximate ramp length. Based on typical operation, and approximate ramp length A = long ramps (1800 + ft.) WIM greater than 20 mph. (avg. of 3 min. @ 20 mph to travefSEI) B medium ramps (1200-1500 It) wlh WIM l ess than 20 mph. (avg ol 2.5 min. @ 18 mph to traverse) C medium ramps (1200 1500 It) WIM (avg. o1 2 min. @ 15 mph to trave

Tollll Stopping Cost $421.82 + S238 .80 $660,62 2.42lepl co coayea 1976 ro 19911 1000 S1.59 per vehicle Idling Cost Total idling costs also include driver time and vehicle wear-and-tear. Total idling costs have been estimated to be $0.014 x average delay per veh i cle (seconds).7 The following calculation illustrates this with ID! values as cited. Driver Time Costs (Av&rage Delay x 0.2778 (1000 vehicles/3600 seconds per hour) S8 .00 (value of driver s rime as before) 2.42 2.67) / 1000 = S0.0144 x Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds) Vehicle Idling Costs Av&rage Delay per Vehic l e x 0 2778 x 0.1931 x 2.42 0.62 = $0 0000805 x Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds) T oral Idling Cgsrs S0.0144 + S0.0000805 x Avetage Delay pet Vehicle (seconds) $0.014 x Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds) Cned from pages 73-74 of t h e AASHTO Benefits Manual. 23


For comparison from th e AASHTO benefits manual, Figure 5 illustrates the relationsh i p of stopp ing and idling cost for trucks (sem i -trail ers only) to stopping and idling costs for a typical mixed fleet of vehicle s A typical mixed fleet assumes only 5% truck s : S t opping costs tor trucks are generally ten times greater, and idling costs are six times greater. Pot e ntial Lost M o to r-Carrier Revenue Cost Potential lost revenue is estima ted assuming that 100% of pot ential los t revenue i s due to delay lime a l one It has been previously established that annual corridor-wide truck operating costs are $7. 4 billion Assuming an o v erall average 5% gross profit margin (as estimated by the Florida Trucking A ssociati o n), annual mot or-carrier revenue fo r the corridor would be approximately $ 7 .77 billion (1. 05 x $7.4 billion) F I GURE 5 Stoppin g A n d Idling Costs I d I s $2.000 i t $0.015 n 0 $0.014 c ; 0 n $1.500 c $0.010 0 $1.000 r v $0.005 h r I $0.500 c v I h ; c t $0.000 $0.000 c 0 Mix ed Fleet Semi-Trailers Only n -Total Stopping Cosre &11 Total Idling Cott 1977 A ASH T O Man1.1al on Benefita/Costs 24


Further, can be assumed that the average revenue truck operating speed is 38.5 mph {100,000 milesjyr x 1 yr/2f!JJ days x 1 day/10 hours), then there would be approximately 527 billion annual revenue truck-seconds, determined as follows: 5.64 billion annual truckmi/es 38.5 mph x 3600 M 527.4 billion annual revenue truck-$econcls Consequently, given the $7.n billion estimated annual motor-carrier revenue, the potential lost revenue cost would be about $0.0147 per second of delay ($7.77 b ill ion/527.4 billion truck-seconds). Determination of Annual Corridor Truck Delay and Potential Cost Savings Comparing a Mure operating scenario of 65 mph WIM to existing operating conditions for the corridor, a total of approximately 1.61 m illion truck-hours of delay woul d be eliminated. This magnitude of delay elimination assumes the 40 existing weigh stations are equally divided among four processing classificat ion s (A, B, C, and D). To ta l delay reduction is calculated as shown in the following example: ((58 millionj4 x 725 seconds) + (58 millionj4 x 708 seconds) + (58 mi//ion/4 x 92 seconds) (58 millionj4 x 76 seconds)) j 3600 = 1.61 million truck-hours 125 seconds, 108 seconds, 92 seconds, and 76 seconds represent the average delay per truck comparing each of the four existing processing classifications, as described in Table 5 notes, to 65mphWIM. Following the example above, total truck delay compared to the other two future operating scenarios (40 mph WIM and 20 mph WIM) would be approximately 1.26 million and 362,500 truck-hours, respectively. Given the previously estimated unit costs for del ay, Table 6-8 summarize the annual ized travel time cost savings fo r each of the future operating scenarios. Table 9 consolidates the results of Tab les 6-8 25


TABLE 6 Es ti mat e d Tota l T r a vel Tim e Cost Sa v ings -65 mph WIM {Ass umes 1 00% Participation ) (A} (B} (C} (0} (E) Comp&t'atlle ilf'r'le Avorogo Through Each StatiOn Rodu C*I Avertg n me toTr.....,.. Avorogo Sf>ood T-Fot o.lay ptr Truck Longth of Station -Througl'l $WI0t1 OOWIM (SooondJ ( .. I .. } (SooondJ (mph) (Sooond>) (B-0) 1 180 20 .. 125 3/4 150 18 4 2 108 1 / 2 120 15 28 92 1/4 90 1 0 .. 76 (F) (G) (H} ( I } Numbe r o f Annual Pa&Ms Throu gh Weigh Number of w.lgh Average De lay per T r ude Hou rs Statkln s (Millions ) Station Configurations Trude (secon ds } ( F / G}(H/3000) 58,000,000 4 125 503,472 58..000. 000 4 108 <35,000 58.000,000 4 92 370,556 58 .(XX), 000 4 76 306. 111 TOTAL TRUCK-HOURS OF DELAY 1,615,139 ( 1 } Annual Stopping Cots $1.59 )( 58.000.000 = $92,220,000 (2) Annu&l idl.,g Com $0. 0 1 44 X 1.6 1 5..139 X 3 600 $6COOdS = $83,728,806 {3) Potential Lost Aownue $0.0147X 1 ,615,139x3. 600stOOnd$ c $85, 473.156 TOTAL TRAVEL TlME COST SAWIGS $.261, 421,960 N otes: {A), ( B), and (C) each define gene ral operat i ng con d itions of ex i sti n g we i gh s t ations. In other words, there a r e fou r basic types of exist i ng operating cond it ions. (G) implies t h at t h e fo ur b asic types o f existing ope r ating cond i tio n s a r e equally div i d e d among the 40 weigh s t ations. 26


TAB LE 7 Es timated T otal Trav el Tim e Cost Sa ving s 40 mph WIM (Assumes 1 00% Parti ci p ation ) (A) (8) (C) ( D ) (C) Comparabl nm. AwroQt Th!OUQII E.odl Station Reduced Avor oge llme to TraverM A-..r $pe< Delay pe r Truck IAngth 01 Sttlion Station Through Station ISS WIM (Seconds) (t.iiH) (Seconds) (mph) (Secondo ) (B-0) I 180 20 JlO JlO 3/ ISO 18 88 82 1/2 120 15 '5 75 1/4 90 10 23 67 (F) (G) (H) (I) Of Annual Paasea Through Weigh N u mber of W.ig.h A .... pet T r uck Hours Stations (M IUions} Station Conf i gurati o n s Truck (weo n ds) (F /G) (H/3600) 58.000 ,000 90 362,500 58,000.000 82 330,27$ 58, 000,000 75 302,083 58,000,000 67 269 86 1 TOTAL TRUCK-HOURS OF DElAY 1 264,122 (1) Annu al Stopping Costs $1.59 X 58,CCX),IXX) = $92 220 000 (2) Ann u aj 6dfin g Costs $0.0144 x 1 264 722 x 3,600 So&COnds = S6S.S63 188 (3) Potential I.DS1 Revenue $0.01 4 7 x 1,264,722 x 3 600 $600n d s = 566,929,068 TOTAL TRAVEL TIM E COST SAIIlNGS $224,7 1 2 ,280 Notes: (A), (B), and (C) eac h define general operati n g c ond i t i ons of exis ting weigh stations. In other words, t h ere are four basic types of exis t ing ope rating (G) implies that the four basic types of existing ope r at i ng conditions are equally divided a mong the 40 weigh stations 27


TABLES Estimated Total Travel Time Cost Savin g s 20 mph WIM (Assu mes 100% Pa rti c i pation) (A) (8) (C) (!)) (EJ Comp.,-all .. lime ,.,,rage Through Each &arion Redueed Avtorago age Speed Type FOf ONy J* Ttuek t.ength of Station SWlon Through SWlon 66 WI M (S.C<>t' Tr ude Ho urs Sta6ons (Mi llions) Statio n Co n fig u r a tio n s Truck ( seconds) ( F /G)(H/3600) 4 0 0 58,000,000 4 1 5 60,41 7 4 30 1:10,833 58,000,000 45 181 .2!10 TOTAL TRUCK-HOUR S OF DELAY 382,!100 ( 1 ) AMU41 Stopp;ng Com $1.59 l( : $92.2:10.000 (2) AMual ldlln g Cos t s $0.0144 x 3$2.500 x 3.600 seconds $18,792,000 {3) Potentia l Lost Re.,..nue $0.0147 x 362.500 3.600 s.eeonds = $ 1 9,183,500 TOTAL TRAVEL TIME COST SAVINGS $130,195 ,500 Notes: (A), (B), a n d (C) each d efine gene ral operating cond i t i ons of existi n g weigh st a t i ons I n o t her words, there are four basic typ es of ex i sting operating condit i ons. (G) impli e s tha t th e fou r bas ic type s o f existing ope r ating conditio n s ar e equ ally di v ided amo n g th e 40 weig h s tations. 28


TABL 9 Estimated Travel Time Cost Savings Futur. ()pttating Sg Costs Idling Costs _.,Lost Tolal Sovlr190 Sconorio (m'llioM ) (milliOn} Atwnou Captuf6d {mi lliof\t ) (millions} 65mph WIM, $92.2 $83.4 $85.2 $260 8 MAinline 8'fpus 40 mph 'MM, otf_.iM $92.2 $65.3 $66.7 $2.2.2 ..... g 20 mph WM, oH41ne $92.2 $18.8 $19 2 $130.2 sorting I t is important to note that these potential travel time cost savings assume 100% part i cipation of t he motor-carrier i ndustry, 100% "time-sensitive"8 truck loa ds, an d all travel time savings due to AVI/IVHS and not to WIM insta lla tion alone. As mentioned previously, WIM installation exists and/or is planned at 24 of the 40 we i gh stations. (Consequently, travel t ime cost savings illustrate the best possible c ase for each scenario in order to determine the maximum possible benefits) Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the re lati onsh ip of varying participation rates to estimated travel time savings and dollar savings, respectively. Perhaps for the most realistic estimation of anticipated t i me and cost savings at this time, the 40 mph WIM scenar i o for 25% participation could be assumed. Therefore, estimated corridor w i de annual t ime savi n gs wou l d be approximately 300,000 truck-hours, and corr idor-wide annua l dolla r savi n gs wou l d be approximately $60 million. For purposes of this research, "time-sensijlve" is defined as truck l oads with abso lut e delivery time deadli nes (I.e .. justi n-time manufactur i ng small package express delivery and fresh fruits and vegetables). 29


FIGURE 6 Time Savings vs. Participation Rate (In mllllona) 2.0 ------1 .6--/ 1.0 0. 5 0 .0' 0 ------k::::;::: '---2 0 4 0 60 80 100 Participat i on Rate (o/o) G.::---;5-:.. By-P.,. WIM --*'-20 mph WIM .. ________ ) -------30 FIGURE 7 Dollar Savings va. Part191pat1on Rate Oollan (In mllllona) 250 I --------------200 .... ----------150 .... "" .. _,.._ -. --..... ..-r. 60 lllf-! o o 20 40 80 80 100 Participation Rate (o/o) &IS mph Sy-p .. -20 mph WIM -i--40 mph WIM


Travel Time Savings Comparison to Operating Costs Compared to the previously defined corridor-wide estimate of annual trucking operation costs {$7.4 billion), the magnitude of total annualized travel time cost savings fo r each future operating scenario ranges from 1 7% 3.5%. However, it is imp ortant to note that when compared to the average gross operating margin of 5% {previously mentioned) the magnitude of total travel time cost savings for each future operating scenario ranges from 34% 70%. Again, under a more real istic estimation of travel time and travel cost savings as previously explained, the magnitude of impact would still be about 16% {($60mf$7.4b)/0.05). B. SAFETY ENHANCEMENT Introduction The implementation of IVHS technology is being cons idered at weigh stations along the 1-75 corridor for a number of reasons, among t hem "to improve safety for commer c ia l vehicle op erations and general motorists affected by them "9 'The travelling p ublic would benefit from the motor-carrier project through reduced co nges t ion and enhanced safety in the vicinity of enfo rcement stations. 1 0 One of the hazards that c o uld be reduced i s t he "weaving movements by exiting and entering trucks." To determine if IVHS technology can improve safety at t hese weigh stations, accident/inc id ent data from the 22 of the 40 directional we igh sta t io ns along the 1, 760mile 1-75 corridor inc lud ing Florida and Georgia and along the 510-mile Highway 401-20 corridor in Canada were collected and analyzed. Accident informat ion was not available from Canada and Ohio and therefore their data was not included in this analysis. However the Ontario Ministry of Transport ation did prov ide general Highway 401 acc i d en t rate data. M obility 2000, 'Proceedings of a National Workshop on IVHS', page 3 Dallas, March, t990. P roposal forthe ADVANTAGE 1-75 M o tor-Carrier Proje<:t Kentucky Transportation Center. November 2t, t990. I nformation provided by Federal H ighway Administration-Tallahassee 31


Background It can be assumed that the occurrence of truck accidents or incidents at weigh stations can contribute significantly to costly damage to vehicles and to costly delays that resuij in lost productivity, lost revenue, and congestion. Most accidents at weigh stations occur in two locations: as trucks enter the weigh station area or as they leave the weigh station area. These accidents occur generally because of the differential i n speed, either when the truck slows down to enter the station or as it attempts to achieve maximum speed when re-entering the highway, or because the driver swerves to enter the weigh station at too high a rate of speed. According to several telephone conversations with weigh station operators, passenger cars can also contribute to the number of accidents by their sudden movement in changing lanes in the immediate vicinity of the weigh stations. 13 According to a study performed by the California Department of T r an sporta t ion tr uck invo l vement in incidents and accidents on all roadways accounts for about 20 percent" of t h e delay occurr ing from all vehicle incidents and accidents A major incident i s def i ned as an accident that blocks two or more lanes of freeway for two hou r s or longer. It is estimated that the average duration of a major incident is 3 hours and 39 min u tes and triggers an average of 2800 vehic l e-hours of delay on the surround ing f r eeway Comm o n i ncidents, which constitute 90%-95% of all incidents are thought to be r esponsible for ha lf of the total delay ca u sed by truck incidents. The average duration of a common inci d ent is one hour, and triggers an average of 1200 vehicle hours of delay.14 Roger F Teal "Es1ima1ing the Full Economic Costs of Truck Incidents on Urba n Freeways lns1ttU1e lor Transportation Studies, of Calilomlalrvine, page 38. November. 1988. Telephone surveys conducted by CUTR during December. 1991, at 11 weigh/Inspection statio n s along the proj ect comdor (7 i n U.S and 4 In Canada). "U r ban F r eeway Gridlock Study : Decreasing the Effects of Large Trucks on Peak-Period Urban Freeway Congestion. Transportation Research Record No. 1256, pages 1819. 32


According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the nationa l rate of all truck accidents in 1990 was 219 accidents per 100 million miles of vehicle travel. In addition, the average cost of a truck accident is $3,100 (for property damage only), according to a 1988 re port by the lnstiMe of Transportation Studies at the Un iver sity of California, lrvine.15 Methodology Data for truck accidents occurring within a 1 /2-mile radius of the diverge and merge ramp junctions at weigh stations along the 1-75 corridor for the three-year period 1987 through 1990 were examined. The 1 /2-mile radi us was selected for examination beca u se it was assumed that accidents occurring outside this radius should not be attributed to weigh stat io n activity alone. Accident data were requested from the Departments of Transportation in the project corr idor states/provinces incl uding Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and Ontario and Quebec. Informat io n was not available f r om Ohio, Ontario and Q u ebec, and both Flor i da and Georgia reported no accidents during the t hree-year period. Therefore, on ly i nformat ion from Michigan Kentucky, and Tennessee was analyzed. The general accident rate data tor Highway 401 (Ontario) was noted for general information purposes only. Data for accidents at weigh stations was gathered by each state from accident survey reports. All data should be assumed to be from 1 989 unless otherwise stated. Data specifically re v ie wed were: (1) type of accident, (2) types of vehicles involved, and (3) dollar amount of damage done to the vehicles involved in the accident (only provided by Tennessee). "Estimat ing !he Full Economic Costs of Truck In cidents on U r ban Freeways page 38 33


Accident rates indicated in this report have been calculated according to the samp le calculation ind icated below. Al:ddent Ral8 = Number oiiiCCidents/100 million ITUck-mileiJ olllavel ATMT = Annual truclc-mlles tnl1leled For example the Kntt Slallon: ATMT ADT 365 = 7 100 x 365 =2,590,000 ATMT in l8lmS o/100 m/U/on lniCk 11N1es ollrfNel .0259 The number ol accidenls !hat ocaJI18d In 1989 W8l8 15 lhetelate, Accident Ral8 15/.0259 = 579 Accident Data By State F lorida Two we igh stations currently are in operation along the 465 miles of 1-75 in F lorida. No accidents were reported as occurring at these weigh stations. Trucks make up abo u t 22.5% of the daily traffic stream in F lo rida Georgia Three weigh stations are located a long the 325 miles of 1 -75 in Georgia. No accidents were reported as occurring at these weigh stations. Trucks make up about 21.7% of the daily traffic stream in Georgia. Tennessee Knox County station i s the only weigh station along the 150 miles of 1-75 in Tennessee. This station is located in a portion of the inte rstate where 1-40 and 1-75 converge. 1-40 enters from the west while 1-75 enters from the south. They meet approximately 3 m i les to the west of the weigh station and run together for about 5 miles until 1-75 separates toward the north and 1-40 continues east. 34


At the Knox County station an annual truck accident rate of 579 accidents per 100 million vehicle of travel was found, which is significantly higher than national rate of 219 This can be attributed to the location of the station. In Tennessee, trucks make up about 21.4% daily of the traffic stream. Of the total number of accidents, 14 occurred when the truck rear-ended another motor vehicle, while 8 accidents occurred when the truck rear end side swiped another motor vehicle. In addition, 3 trucks collided with a fixed object, 3 hit another vehicle while going straight and 1 overturned. Of these accidents a majority {79%) of them occurred while the truck was traveling toward the west. It is important to note that the dollar amount of these truck accidents {property damage only) is significantly lower than that reported for the national average for truck accidents. Figure 8 depicts the range of accident damage costs for the Knox we igh station. Kentucky Figure 8 Accident Damage Costs For Tennessee Three weigh stations are located along the 140 miles of 1-75 in Kentucky, at Laure l, Georgetown, and Kenton. Trucks make up about 22.2% of the da il y traffic stream i n Kentucky. Overall in Kentucky, 9 accidents occurred while the truck was moving straight 35


in the traffic lane Of those 9 accidents 8 were in an accident involving another vehicle, while 1 overturned and involved no other vehicles. In addition, 3 accidents occurred while the truck was changing lanes; in one case the car was overtaking the truck and in the other case the car was traveling straight in the traffic lane. Also, 2 accidents occurred when a truck was backing up, 1 accident occurred when a truck hit a parked truck. Of the 15 total accidents, 8 occurred in the south direction and 7 occurred in the north direction. At the Laurel station, an accident rate of 142 accidents per 100 m i llion vehicle miles of travel was calculated At this station 18% of accidents occurred within 0.3 miles before the entrance and 9% occurred within 0.3 miles after the exit ramp. This indicates that a small percentage (27.29%) of the accidents at these stations occurred immediately ad j acent the weigh station whi l e the ma j ority of the accidents are occurring over 0.3 miles past the weigh station. At the Georgetown stat i on, an accident rate of 49.8 was calculated. A n d, none of t h ese accidents occurred within a 0 3 mile radius of the on and off ramps At the Kenton station an accident rate of 99.5 was calcu l a ted No accidents occurred w i thin 0.3 mile before the entrance ramp ; however, 33% of accidents occurred within 0.3 miles after the exit ramp. The rema i ning accidents were l ocated between 0.3-0.5 miles from ramps. Two weigh stations are located along the 200 miles of 1-75 i n Ohio Trucks cons t itute approx i mately 24 .5% of the dai ly traffic in Ohio. No data were available on accidents at this time. Michigan Three weigh stations were examined a l ong the 315 m i les of 1-75 i n Mich i gan, at Pont iac, Eri e, and Bridgepcrt. Trucks constitute approximately 14 4% of the daily t raff i c i n Michigan. 36


At the Pontiac station, an accident rate of 85 (1990 data) was calculated. At this station 29% of the accidents occurred within 0.3 miles of the entrance ramp and no accidents occurred within 0.3 miles of the ramp. At the Bridgeport station. an accident rate of 42.1 was calculated. At. this station, no accidents occurred within 0.3 miles of the entrance ramp and 20 percent of the accidents occurred within 0.3 miles of exit ramp. The Erie station reported no accidents. Accident types were not indicated. Ontario. Canada The Ontario Min istry of Transportation provided 1989 accident rate data for various loca tions along Highway 401 generally close (but not within 1/2-m ile) to truck weigh stations The Canadian accident rate is in terms of annual accidents per million kilometers of travel, whereas the U.S. rate is per 100 million miles of t ravel. The refo re the conversion would be times (x) 16 1 for Canadian to U.S. The Canad ian rates varied from 0.2 (near Wesleyville) to 1.8 (near Windsor). The average rate for the locations near weigh stations was 0. 7, which is equivalent to a U.S. accident rat e of 113 (about one-half the u.s. average for truck accidents). It is importan t to no te that the Canadian accident rate data does not distinguish between the accidents involving trucks and accidents not involving t rucks, it inc ludes & vehicular accidents. Findings Examination of the data revealed tha t, based on truck-miles traveled, accidents occur at a rate s ign ifican tly lower than the national average as a result of trucks entering or exiting weigh stations. The median t ruck accident rate at all the weigh stations in the 1-75 corridor is 92.25 accidents per 100 million truck-miles of travel, which is significantly lower than the national average of 219. Figure 9 compares the n ational truck accident rate to that of the corridor weigh stations which reported accidents A t otal of 69 acc i dents have occurred over the last three years (1987 -1990) within the 0.5 mile radius of the 22 weigh stations in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan According to se l ected weigh station personnel interviewed by telephone, the damage done to the veh i cles involved in these accidents was generally minor and did not affect traffic flow. 37


The following conclusion s can be drawn based upon the analysi s of truck acci dent data at weigh stations along the 1-75 corridor. {1) Relatively few accidents oCc:ur in the immediate vicinity of weigh stations along the 1 -75 corridor. (2) Average dollar amount of damage to trucks inv olved in accidents at wei g h stations is minor in scope. (3) The few, mill()( accidents in the immec:fJate vicinity of weigh stations along the 1-75 corridor result in little: eoo 500 400 300 200 100 0 (a) lost productivity or lost revenue due t o time del ays (b) impact on interstate cong estion (c) i mpact on interstate safety FIGURE 9 Accident Rates at Weigh Truett Rate per 100 mJHion V N T Kno.&. L aur l O-orttOWI\ K.ento11 Pont iac ltldOt POrt N a HOII e t TN K Y KY l( y loll N l "'"raoe Weigh Stations Nationa1 Avera-ge rat ia for truc k e on au lacilitlea Therefore the implementation oi JVHS technology at weigh station s along th e 1-75 corrido r could result in increased safety; however because so few accidents occur a t these stations, safety should not be a major motivation for implementation Table 10 lists the number of acci dents, b y s tate, adjacent to weigh stati ons. 38


TABLE 10 Historical Truck Accident Trends (within 1/2-mlle each direction of weigh stations) -1987 1088 19811 1990 Erle MlehigM1 N/A s 2 s """""" Mlchlg.on N/A 1 5 1 MlehigM1 N/A 1 2 1 U..ol Ken""*Y N/A 3 _,_., K ntucky N/A 0 1 0 Kenton Kntudcy N/A 1 2 0 Knox Tennessee 2 12 15 N/A C. PAPERWORK REDUCTION Many cost savings and benefits are hypothesized tor IVHS. The benefits resulting from the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program for paperwork automat i on seem clear enough for the various states. However, the benefits for the individua l motor-carriers are not as well defined. Lockheed Information Services, Inc., has estimated the of paperwork to constitute between 2-10% of a trucking company's operating budget, or between $10$100 per truck per month. One area which receives mention, but apparently has not been explored, is the potential for cost savings arising from the automati o n of paperwork. Paperwork can mean var i ous things to different audiences. The current ADVANTAGE 1-75 program is to electronically transmit a trip packet of paperwork down-line (ahead of the vehicle) from a vehicle's f irst entry station in the corridor which contains trip-specific information such as: vehicle identification number, axle spacings, axle weights, truck configuration, the time of entry into the system, and the time of passage at the prior enforcement station. The examination of operating credentials (license plates and the ir expiration dates, ICC numbers c ab cards, bingo stamps. fuel ma rkers, hazardous materials paperwork, and 39


over dimension/overweight permits) would be accomplished by computers linked to each state'sfprovince's central database.1 6 Enforcement and Regulation Agencies The benefits to commercial vehicle enforcement and regulation agencies seem obvious. States would be able to reduce their investment in manpower costs while increasing their revenue Total automation, such as that provided by sufficiently advanced AV I and related technologies, could allow una ttended weigh stations to operate on a round the clock, 24-hour schedule. The potential revenues currently lost by both the curta i led h ours of operation at we igh stations and wave-bys when the queue backs out onto the mainline are unknown. However, the cost of installing and maintainin g the new technology could be more than offset by the certainty of collecting revenue from commerc ia l veh i cles 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Addit i onal benefits to enforcement and regulat ion agencies woul d r esult from increased safety and reduced pavement damage achieved by better monitoring of over dimension and overweight vehicles. Motor-Carriers The ADVANTAGE 1-75 program identifies potential benefits to motor-carr ie rs as: faster delivery time, lower operating costs, energy savings from reduced s topping, fewer inspection stops, reduced paperwork and increased uniform i ty.17 Additiona l poten t ial benefits are identified as: reduced congest i on, enhanced safety in the v ic inity of enforcement stat i ons, a lessened probability of a queue backing up on to the ma inl ine and lower transportation costs. '8 John A. Deacon, Jerry G Pigman and Thomas H. Jacobs, lmpJemenJing IVHS Technology: The Advan!agel-75 Approach (Washington, D .C.: Transportallon Research Board Publication# 9t2777, 1991) p 357. Ibid. Ibid. p 358. 40


The feelings and opinions of some members of the trucking community concerning the potential benefrts to carriers as outlined in the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program were sampled in a series of informal conversations and interviews A member of the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) staff spoke with drivers at a truck stop '9 and visited and interviewed management personnel at three over-the-road trucking companies loca ted in Aorida. 20 The results of their conversations and interviews have been summarized as a set of questions (a.) and Issues (I.) posed by the int erviewed truck drivers as follows: Lower Costs for Paperwork a. How will the ADVANTAGE 1 program reduce paperwork costs? I. Under the current rules trucks will still be required to registe r with eac h State traveled. If anything, it would seem that additional paperwork would be required to establish IVHS registration and to establish and make advance payments to an IVHS account. a. How would the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program reduce paperwork at the scale houses? I. Today, paperwork at the scale houses is almost non ex is tent. With hundreds to thousands of trucks passing scale houses daily, at best they receive a WIM and a quick glance for license plates and fuel markers. Cigar City Truck Stop at U .S. 92 In Tampa, Florida. ,. Smalley Transportation Company Tampa. Florida; Gator Freightways Inc . Orlando. Florida and Alterman Transport Unes, Inc., Miami, Aorida. 41


0 What are the financial benefits to my company if all of my drivers' hours and load weights are monitored and reported? 1. The over-the-road trucking industry i s deregulated and operating on very small profit margins. Some trucking companies have been known to increase their profit margin by running their trucks overweight and their drivers "over on hours' (as defined by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). This p ra ctice is thought to be both persistent and wide spread. 0 What is the benefit to my company wh en sta t es have bette r records of my mileage traveled in each state? 1. State fuel taxes are based on self-report ing of in-state mileage traveled and i n-state fuel taxes paid. When fue l is purchased i n a state the receipts showing fuel tax paid are sent to company headquarters At the end of the year fuel taxes paid and mileage traveled are calculated tor each state Each state has its own formu la for compliance. When a state's formula shows the mileage traveled by a company exceeds the amount of fuel taxes paid, a tax payment is due that state by the company. Safety Records supporting mileage traveled are not exact. They are based on secondary sources (driver logs, dispatch sheets and sales records) and, as such, are open to interpretation. States are reported to make fuel tax audits rarely. Therefore some companies have been known to adjust their reported mileage traveled to match their fue l tax rece ipt totals. 0. With the potential for IVHS-cleared trucks what is to prevent a truck from moving for 10 hours with no visual inspection by the driver or observat ions from scal e personnel? I. When trucks queue up and pass scale houses both other drivers and scale house personnel have the opportunity to observe smoke and obvious leaks. 42


a. Will this lead to more catastrophic equipment failures which otherwise might have been prevented by more frequent cursory visual inspections? I. Fluid and air leaks are sometimes detected and corrected before they pers i st long enough to cause catastrophic equipment failures. a. Will drivers with loads of hazardous materials be more inclined to drive straight through and not perform r equired walk around inspections? I. Drivers with hazardous materials are required to perform a walk-around tire inspection every 2 hours.21 a. How will the ADVANTAGE 1-75 p r ogram enhance safety in the vicinity of enforcement stations? I. The accident rate is no higher at enforcement stat i ons t han on t h e adjacent ma i n line.22 a. What advantage wou l d the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program have over the curre n t practice of waving trucks past the weigh station when the cue is backed up to the ma i n l ine? I. Currently weigh station personnel wave trucks by when they are noti f ied of cues by truckers with their CB radios, the weigh station personnel on t h e other side of the highway or by their own personnel making visual inspections of the cue f rom the we igh station. States Department of Transportation Federal Moto r carri er SafelY Regu l ations. (Washington. D C. : ) Part 397.17 Tires 22Mike Pietrzyk and Tom Miler. resea rc h data [Tampa. Rorida: Center for Urban Transportation Research, 1991.) 43


Summary This section on paperwork has explored and framed some of the questions which are prominent in the minds of motor-carrier personnel. These questions will need satisfactory responses before the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program will be accepted by the individual motor-carriers. State/Province Enforcement and Regula tory Agencies The implementation of ADVANTAGE 1-75 holds the promise of many potential benefits for state enforcement and regulatory agencies. Through the use of high technology, state enforcement and regulatory agencies will increase their potent ial effic i ency and effectiveness while reducing their investment in manpower costs. The w i der the acquisition and use of ADVANTAGE 1-75 high technology for checking class i fying, and record ing paperwork irregu lar ities, the greater the nature and scope of benefits accru in g to state enforcement and regulatory agencies. Motor -Carriers The ADVANTAGE 1-75 program for automating paperwork is perceived by the indiv idual motor -c arriers as a risk to be weighed against the ir bottom line {i.e., p r ofits). Currently, the proposed plan would require motor-carriers to register with each state traveled and with the ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program to establ ish IVHS registration The proposed ADVANTAGE 1-75 registration would involve advance payments to activate an IVHS reg i stration account. Also, closer monitoring of motor-carrie r mileage for fuel tax purposes holds the potentia l of incr eased revenues paid to state regulatory agencies. Motor-carriers id entified potential negative safety benefits (fewer visual and walk around inspections) resuing from the implementat i on of automated paperwork associated w ith ADVANTAGE 1-75. Any negative safety benefit can be translated into potential in creased motor -car rier costs (increased catastrophic failures and crashes) Motor -car rier benefits accruing from the automation of paperwork under ADVANTAGE 1-75 44


are as yet undefined. The potential risks to motor-carrier profits (increased registration and capital costs, increased fuel taxatioo, and increased catastrophic failures and crashes) is perceived as high by the motor-carriers. Until ADVANTAGE 1-75 can identify and quantify direct and tangible benefits to motor-carriers' profits, it will be difficult to gain their willing participation in the ADVANTAGE 1-75 partnership. VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS The 40 weigh stations that exist within the project corridor have been categorized into four basic types of operating configurations. The 40 weigh statio ns are divided equally among the four types of existing operating configurations. In order t o determine the potential magnitude of costs for travel time savings the tour exjstjog station o p era ting configurations were compared to three possible AVI/IVHS operating scenarios (A -65 mph total by-pass, B 40 mph WIM, and C 20 mph WIM). Travel time savings have been annualized on a corridor-wide basis only. Given general truck travel characteristics for the project corridor developed by CUTR, t he Kentucky Transportation Center (KTC), and JHK & Associates, the following general operating attributes were esta b lished for the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program to assist i n the determination of travel time savings: 5.64 billion annual truck-miles driven (determined by JHK) Average Interstate t ruck-trip length = 227.85 miles (determined by KTC) 24.7 million annual truck-t rips (calculated by CUTR) Average number of weigh stations passed per t ruck-t rip = 2.35 (determined by KTC) 58 million annual passes through weigh stations (calculated by CUTR) 45


Stopping cost per truck and idling cost per truck-second of delay were determined from the AASHTO Cost-Benefit Manual as $1.59 and $0.014, respectively. Additionally, based on an average 5% gross operating profit margin for motor-carriers (industry average), potential lost revenue was determined to be $0.88 per minute of delay. Comparing estimated delay associated with current weigh station operating configurations to reduced delay estimated for each of the three possible operating scenarios with AVI/IVHS, annual travel time cost savings were determined to be A $260.8 million, B $224.2 million, and C $130.2 million, respectively. In comparison to total annual truck operating costs ($7.4 billion). estimated trave l time savings could represent from 1. 7% to 3.5% reduction In operating costs. Most importantly, when compared to an average gross operating margin for motor-carriers of 5%, estimated travel time cost savings could represent the difference between bankruptcy and continued operation fo r motor-carriers along the project corridor. However, it must be clearly understood that the estimated travel time cost savings noted above in c lude three major assumptions: 100% of motor-carriers participate in ADVANTAGE 1-75 p r ogram. 100% of truck loads are time-sensitive. 100% of travel time savings is due to AVIfiVHS techno logy application at weigh stations, and not attributed to WIM installation alone (WIM currently exists and/or is planned for installation at 24 of the 40 weigh stations). B. SAFETY ENHANCEMENT Reported accidents within 1 /2-mile in each direction of corridor weigh stations in dicate that a total of 69 accidents (with no fatalities) have occurred over the period 1987-1990. Florida and Georgia reported that accidents have not occurred, and no accident data was received from Ohio and Canada. It is interesting to note t hat almost half of the accidents over the 3-year period have occurred at one location during a single year (29 at the Knox (TN) weigh station dur ing 1989) Furthermore, the severity and congestion delay 46


associated with these accidents was very minimal according to the accident reports and telephone interviews with a cross section of weigh station operators along the project corridor. The estimated truck accident rate for the Knox weigh station was 579 (accidents per 100 m i llion truck-miles of travel) wh i le the other locations had a rate of 150 or less. Also, about 95% of all the reported accidents had resulting property damage costs less $1,000 fo r each accident. Comparatively, national truck accident statistics indicate an average accident rate of 219, and $3, 1 00 (property damage only) per accident. Given a median truck accident rate of 92 (so as not to over-emphasize the Knox Station accidents) and med i an cost of $400 assumed for the entire project corr i dor, the maximum annual reduction in accident costs (property damage only) would be approximately $43,000. C. PAPERWORK REDUCTION The ADVANTAGE 1-75 program i s anticipated to electronically transm i t a trip packet of paperwork from a truck's first entry stat i on to down-line stations Paperwork i n the "tr i p packet" is expected to inc l ude trip-specific data as well as operating credentials Tota l automation of monitoring this type of paperwork cou l d r educe manpower requ i rements at weigh stat i ons. Three emp l oyees (inspector, sca l e technician, and citation officer ) per station is typica ll y required to conduct normal operations. The average annua l salary for we igh stat i on personnel i s approx i mately $27,000 AVI/IVHS technology could a l so allow unmanned weigh stat i ons to operate on a rou nd the-clock, 24-hour schedule assuming no u nmon i tored truck traffic (as currently exists w it h periodic wave-by and closures of weigh stations). The general percentage of unmonitored truck traffic and violation rate of monitored t ruck traffic with i n the projec t corridor i s generally unknown. In Florida, it has been estimated that as much as one-third of the annual truck traffic along the 1-75 weigh stat i on areas (approximately 920 000 trucksjyear) could be unmonitored The recorded v i olation rate for the monitored t ruck traffic i n Florida is approximately one percent. The violation rate for the unmonitored truck traffic most likely i s higher than one percent. 47


Based on several localized interviews {conducted at a prominent truck stop and several motorcarrier offices) individual motor-carriers will still be required to register manually in each state they travel, and IVHS accounting will create additional manual paperwork requirements. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the individual motor-carrier manpower and operating budget is already allocated to fulfilling paperwork requirements Additionally, electronic motor-carrier travel logs, a perceived benefit to enforcement and regulatory agencies, are expected to receive little acceptance from the motor-carrier. Currently, supporting records for mileage traveled are not exact and are open to interpretation, and fuel tax audits are infrequently performed by states. Paperwork reduction benefits appear to accrue only for the enforcement and regulatory agencies. If one employee at each weigh station could be eliminated with appl ication of IVHS, approximately $ 1 million in salaries could be reduced. Also, the benefits of 24-hour, round-the-clock continuous monitor ing of truck traffic could increase r evenue collected from vio l ation citations. For example, the situation cited on the previous page for Florida could result in an add i tiona l $2.3 million collected annually from v i olat ion citations (920 000 x 0.01 x $250 average amount per violation), even at one percent violation rate VIII. CONCLUSIONS A. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS Travel time savings, in terms o f anticipated reduced stopping and idling costs and potential lost motor-carrier revenue captured with i mproved automation of weigh stat ion operations, will be relatively sign i ficant in terms of impact on motor-carrier average gross operating margin. Safety enhancement, in terms of expected accident cost reduction wit h imp r oved automation of weigh station operat i ons, will be relatively insignificant primarily because of the small number and low severity of histor i cal truck accidents adjacent to corridor we i g h stations. Paperwork reduction, in terms of cost savings associated with automation, could be substantial for enforcement and regulatory agencies; however individual motor-carrie r s may rea l ize additional paperwork requirements due to IVHS registration and acco u nt bookkeeping. 48


B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the experience and findings of the introductory research regarding assessment of benefrts for ADVANTAGE 1-75 contained in this report, CUTR recommends the future research needs listed below. CUTR is available and capable of assisting in any of these future research needs. The following recommendations for Mure research/data needs are intended to guide research activities. This l i sting is not intended to be exhaustive and not necessarily in order of importance. Determine the feasibility of centralized, concentrated, coordinated and compatible data collection for ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program (establishment of clearinghouse}. Gather and record vehicle classification counts (by 1 5-minute intervals} i mmediately preceding each weigh stat ion l ocation. Identify and analyze h igh accident areas (and extent of near-misses} within ADVANTAGE 1-75 Program corridor, and more accident analysis at the Knox Station Catalog major truck ex i ts/entrances into corr idor (truck trave l patterns}. Document extent of unmon i tored truck traffic and "'skirt ing of weigh stations ( lost revenue to regulatory age n cies). Determine common data requirements of paperwork (streamlining and S1andardization}. Determine the extent that IVHS could provide motor-carriers wit h most curre n t regulations for taxation, regulation and registration, and procedures for fi l ing paperwork in each state I province (internal versus external compliance requirements and record keeping services). Develop segment specific operating costs of t r ucking on 1 -75/HWY 40 1 -20 (cost savings by i ndividual truck-trip). 49


Determ ine existing violation rates and revenue col lected by we igh station location. Survey the perceptions of motor-carrier industry to ADVANTAGE 1-75 program (briefing/questio nnaire to motor-<:arrier industry). Determine the extent IVHS could provide motor-<:arrlers with realtime advance weather reports and congestion/delay condijions. Determine the extent of time-sensitive and hazardous cargo movement s wit hin co r ridor. Develop a detailed analys is on e xtent o f wave-by / back-up at each we igh station l ocation. Develop optimal ramp configurations, given truck volumes and weigh scale t echnology, for minimizing motor-carrier delay. Estimate the expected future truck volumes and t heir site-specific impact a lo ng the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program corridor. Inv estigate the feasibility of electronic driver logs for motor carriers. Investigate the fea sibi lity of monitoring maintenance (preventive, routine and breakdown) records of trucks along ADVANTAGE 1-75 corridor. Invest i gate the f easJbility of offe ring addi t i onal safety and cost savings ince n tives t o prov ide to the motor-carrier industry for participating i n the ADVANTAGE 1-75 program (e.g., training programs in fuel conservation, defensive driving and emergency and evasive driv in g techniques). 50


BIBUOGRAPHY & DATA COLLECTED ADVANTAGE 1-75 System Design WorkbQok, prepared by JHK & Assoclates. September, 1991. Agent. Kenneth. A., and Pigman. Jerry, G., "Evaluallon of Highway Geometries Related to Large Trucks ." University of Kentucky-Kentucky Transportation Center and The Fede

BIBUOGRAPHY & DATA COLLECTION (continued) Commonweal1h of Kentucky Department of Transportation, "PPans of Proposed Project: Kenton County 1-75 Loadmeter Station." August. 1989. Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Transponatlon. "Syslems Operations Guide and Accident Code Form.' May 1978. Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Transponatlon, "Mainline 1 Classification Counts: Daily Volumes by Vehicle Type," 1987-1990. Commonweatth of Kentucky Department of Transportation, Kentucky Accident Reporting System. laurel County 1/1/8810 12/31/00. Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Transportation. Kentucky Accident Reporting System, Scott County, 1/1/88to 12/31/00. Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Transportation Kentucky Accident Reporting System, Kenton County. t /1/88 to 12/31/00. Deacon, John A, Jacobs, Thomas H., and Pigman. Jerry G .. "Implementing IVHS Technology: The ADVANTAGE 1 Approach", P reprinl #91277, 1991 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Garber, Nichclas. J .. and Gadiraju Ravl. "The Effect of Trucl< Traffic Control Strategies on Traffic Aow and Safety on Multilane Highways." prepared for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Washington. D. C September, 1989. Garber, Nicholas, J .. and Gadiraju, Ravi, "Speed Variance and tts Influe nce on Accldenls." prepared for lhe AAA Foundalion lor Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C .. September, 1989 Garber, Nicholas, J. and Gadiraju Ravl "Impact of Differential Speed on Highway Speeds and Accidenls." prepared for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Salety, Washington. D.C., Feb ruary, t99t. Insurance inslttUie for Highway Safely, "Tractor-Traaers : Fatality Facts 1991." Arlington, VA. JUiy 1991. !IE Journal (enlire issue dedicaled to iVHS), Volume 60, Number 11, Washinglon, D.C., November, 1990. Jones. ian. S .. and Slein, Howard S "Defective Equipmenl and Tractor -Trailer Crash Invo lvement Volume 21, No. s. Great Britain, t989. 52


BIBUOGRAPHY & DATA COlLECTED (continued) Keary, A, T., "St. Clair and Detroit Rivers lnternatJonal Crossings Study; Ontario Ministry ol Transportation Michigan Department of Transpot1alion, and Transpof1 Canada. June. 1990. Kentucky Transportation Center, "Proposal for the Adva.Uge 1-75 Molor-Carrier Project", submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. U .S. Department of TransportaUon, University ol Kentucky, November. 1990. Lyles. Richard, W .. Campbell, Kenneth, L, Blower, Daniel, F., and Stamatladls, Pollchronis, Differential Truck Accident Rateli for Michigan, Department of CMI and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University. and Unillersi!y of Michigan Transportation Research Michigan, August 1990, revised May 1991. Massie, Dawn, L, Trucks lnvoilled in Fatal Accide n ts Factboo!< 1987, Center lor National Truck Statistics. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. June, 1991 Ministry of Transportation Ontario, 'Misc. Summary ol Truck lnSj)ection Stations and Maps". Ministry of Transportation Ontario, Highway 401 and 402 Traffic Volume Counts. Location and Traffic Vol ume Counts of aU Permanent Count Stations on Highway 401, and misc. accident rate data Aug ust, 1991. Ministry of Transportation Ontario "Operating and Maintenance Costs." (Memo), Cana d ian Government Publishing Centre Ottawa, Canada, 1990. Mobility 2000, Proceedings of a National Workshop on IVHS Sponsored by 2000, hosted by Texas TraOSj)ortation lnsthute. Dallas. March 1990. Motor Vehicle Manufactures Association of the Unhed States, Inc., MVMA Motor Vehic l e F acts & Figures JJ!lll, Washington, D.C., 1991. Philips, Karen B .. and McCutchen Janie, A., "Economic Regulati on vs. Safety Regulat ion of the Trucking Industry : Which More Effectively Promotes Safety?," Transoo


BIBUOGRAPHY & DATA COUECTEO (continued) State of Georgia Department of Transportation, "Planning Data Services Annual Recaphulation Automatic Traffic Recorder Data for 1989." Station Perry, Location 1-75 a1 Separallon wjFAS-2045, lnterSiate Rural. State of Georgia Department of Transportation, "Piaming Data Services Annual Recaphulatlon Automatic Traffic Recorder Data for 1989." Station Stockbridge, Location 1-75 at Separation wjFAS-1794, Interstate Urban. State of Georgia Department of Transportation, "Report of Vehlde Classification Dala." Planning Data SeNices In Cooparation whh the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Georgia, June. 1991. State of Georgia Department of Transportation. "Enforcement Results lor Period OS/01/91-QS/31/9 1 ." Department of Transportation Office of Permits and Enforcement, Georgia. May, 1991. State ol Michigan Department of Transpo

BIBUOGRAPHY & DATA COLLECTED (continued) State of Tennessee Department of Transportation, "Vehlcle Oasslflcallon Count Sheet," Bureau of P l anning and Development, Tennessee. 198$-1991 State of Tennessee Department of Transportation. Tennessee Uniform Traffic Accident Repon, 1/1/88 to 12/31/90. Stale of Tennessee DepaJ1ment of Transportation, Tennessee Roadway l nformall on Management System Route Feature Record. State of Tennessee Department of Transportation, "ContlnuousA T R Monthly Summary," Bureau of Plan ning and Development, Tennessee. Ja n uary, 1990. State o f Ten nessee Department of Transportation, eontlnuousA.T.R. Monthl y Summary, Bureau of P1anning and Development, Tennessee, January, 1991. Stein, Howard S., and Jones lan S Crash Involvement of La rge Trucks by Configuration: A CaseControl S t udy," American Journal of Pub li c Healt h reprint, Volume 78, May, 1988. Teal, Roger, F., "Estimating the Full Economic Costs of Truck Incidents on Urba n Freeways; P repa red for the AAA Foundation fo r Traff i c Safety, Washi ngton D.C., November, 1988. T r ansportation Research and Marketing in Cooperation The Commercial Vehicl e Safety Allia n ce "A Report on the D etermination and Eval uation ot the Role of Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents," prepared t o r the AAA Foundatio n tor Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C., October, 1985. T r ansportation Department Public Ut iliti es Commission ot Ohio, 'Motor -Carrier Safety Assistance Program Quarterly Sell-Evaluation." Second Quarter. Fiscal Year 1991, Jan.Mar. 1991. Transportation Research Board Nationa l Research Counc i l, "Fr eigh t Transportation: Trucki ng Issues 1990," Transportation Research Record. No. 1256, Washington, D.C .. 1990. T r ansportation Research Board National Research Counc i l, 'Use of Weighi n Motion Systems tor Data Collectio n and E n forcement. National Cooperative Hiohway Research Program Syn thesis of Highway Prectice, No. 24, Washington, D .C September. 1986. Trensportation Research Board National Research use ot Anal ysis to Devel op Roadside Safety Pollees and Guidel i nes," T r ansportation Research C ircular, No. 362, August, 1990. 56


BIBUOGRAPHY I. DATA COlLECTED (conllnued) Trip Length Survey Summary, compiled by the Kentucky Transponatlon Center, t991 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminlslration. summary of Medium & Heavy Truck Crashes In 1989," U .S. Government Prln1lng Office. 1991. U .S Department of TransponaHon, NatJonaJ Highway Traffic Safety Administration "A Summary of Fatal and Nonfatal Crashes Involving Medium and Heavy Trucks in 1988," U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990. Vehicle Navigation & lnfonna tlon Systems Conference Proceedings (Pans 1 and 2 ). published by the Society of Automotive Engineers. inc . Warrendale. PA, October 1991. 57




ADVANTAGE 1-75 PROJECT CONTACT UST The following llallng represents the con1acta for CUTR 111roughout the duration of this project. Mr George Herndon FOOT Manager, RegUlatory and Policy Issues (904).--6596, Sur>eom: 27&-5596 Mr. Mickler FOOT .Qffice o1 Molor-Carrier Compliance (904)-488-7920. Suncom: 27&-7920 Mr. Aomie PriceJMr. Rk:k Reel FOOT -Sratistics (904)-488-4111, Suncom: 278-4111 U. Don SpradloyjOfflcer Robert Avery Whtte Springs (FL) Weigh Stalion (904)-397-2157 Mr. Jack Pelham Aorlda Dept of Highway Safety Suncom: 278-0921 Mr. Ed Pooser Aorida Trucking Assoclalion (904)-222-9900 Dr. Richard Beilock Unlverstty of Florida (904)-392-1881 Mr. Doug Terry JHK & Associates Mr. J

ADVANTAGE l-75 PROJECT CONTACT UST (continued) Mr. Ken Campbell Michigan Transportation Research Institute (313)-763-E076 Mr David Lollar Tennessee OOT-Accldent Data {615)-741.()968 Ms. Betsy Sharples Ontario Trucking Association {416) 249-740 1 Mr Guy Mai hot Automobae Insurance Society of Quebec Mr. M i t Harmellnk Ontario M i n i stry of Transportation (416)-5040 Mr. larry Strawhorn American Trucking Association {703)-838 1790 AAA Foundation for Traffic & Public Salety (703) 222.0000 Ms. Unda Rothbart AT A-Directo r, lnformallon Services (703 ) -838 188 Insurance lnstltute for Highway Salety (703) -2471500 Mr. Ha!Ty Voccola lockheed lnlorma1Jon Services, Inc (202)-692 Mr Charles l.Mngston Highway Us8

ADVANTAGE 1-75 PROJECT CONTACT UST (continued} Mr Steve campbell ATA Oirector of Safety (703}-83&-1853 Mr Russ capelle A TA.S1atls1lcs (703) -638-1818 U S OOHiureau of Motorcarr ler Safety (202 }66 Mr. M ike Hatdy Asst. Aeec Superintendent Publlx.ukeland Fl 8 13} -688-1188 Mr. Bob Ohlinger TroplcannaBradenton,Fl ( 81 3)-4461 61


ADVANTAGE 1-75 PROJECT CONTACT UST (continued) The following were CUTR contacts for molor-<:anfer reglalrallon llallnga: Rorida VIrginia Klrtdard, (904)-488-2454 Georgia -Luda Ramey, (404)-559-6600 MichiganHerb Aelds, (517)-334-6389 Ohio Janet Locklear, Tennessee Brenda Sllvers. (6 1 5)-25 1 -5354 Ontario Betsy Sharplll$, (416)-249-7401 KentuckyDavid H8fllld (Jerry Pigman) (606)-257-4508 The following are telephone numbers for welghflnspecllon stations SUIVeyed by CUTR (via the telephone) during December, 1991. Whhe Springs(Fl)(904)-397 2157 Monroe(GA) (912)-994 1279 Knox(TN ) (61 5)-5071 London(KY) (502)-564-3276 Kenton(KY) (502) 564-3276 Findlay(OH) (4 1 9)-425-3703 Erie(MI J (313)-&4S-5715 Pontiac ( M i l -{313)-335-4509 W i ndsor(ON n {51 9) 735-5 1 s 1 Trafalgar(ONn WMby(ONn (416)-434 1416 62


ADVANTAGE 1-75 QUESTIONNAIRE (Check one bOX 01ty to answer each question) 1. What Is the avetage size ol your daily operating fiHI (Include all vehicles, and combination unlt.s) ? B 0 51 100 C 0 21 so D. 05 E. 0 lo,. 1han s 2 On a typ;aa business day, how many trips for velllcles lde<1tifled In question #I use any segment o1 1 -75 and/or Hwy 401? (A trip Is defMied u having one entry and one on 1 and/or Hwy 401 20 where the weight and/or cargo changes) B 0 40 C .010 D o ........ 10 3. What time block do the majority of your vehicles use 1 and/ Hwy 401? A c P M. D 04 P.M.-7 P .M. 4 What percentage ol your fteet trips identified from question il2 are time sensitive Q.e .. "just In time or schedu led delivery within a two hour or less time frame)? A 0 than 50% B 0 25'%-50,., C 0 2 4'% 0 0 5'Kt E. 0 ls s than 511i 5 W hat Is th e mQSt frequent manner in which your vehicles commu nicat e with you they a r e on the i r trips? A. 0 Collin .... lOiopllono after oacb C.OT-rodlo D oen.. .. __, .. __ e a ........... -. D 0 "' "'''"' F 0 Oono<. please specify--------S. Of the following, what is th e most frequent cause of delays fot your fteettraveling 1-75 and /or Hwy40t 20? (Please ran k each response 1 most frequent .... 6 least frequent) A. 0 Gtnral tfa.Hic oong.stion C. 0 O,.ulftg at weigh station E. 0 ln

7. For the most frequent cause ol delay Identified In question #6. what Is the average dutatlon for this delay? A. 0 groator INn 2 OOWt 0. 031Smlnuttt B. 0 1 2 """" E. 0 t5 30 mlnutn C. 49 minutes F. 0 than 15 minutes 8. What percent of your fleet traveling along 1-75 and/or Hwy 401 encounter the type of delays Indicated In question #ffl 9. To the best of your recollection, how many accidents have your vehldes been involved i n wnhin the last three years? A CJso rmcxe B. 04 c. 03 D.02 E 0 1 F. 0 none 10. Of the following types of paperwork, which would be the most beneficial to your fleet !raveling on 1 75 and/or Hwy 401 to have coded electron i cally to pennn bypassing enrout e weigh stations? A. 0 I C C D. 0 Orrv.t log information G. 0 Fuel marke B. 0 Stale(s ) opera.1lng authotiry C. 0 Apprtionoct vthicle r eg i stration E. 0 Hazardous material manl1est F 0 Safety ratin g H. 0 Opo

Aug ... 27, 199 1 Mr. G.g.e Herndon Man&get, Regulatory and Policy leau.a Florida Oepattrnent of T tansportatlon 606 SuwMnM SUMt, Mill SWion #57 Tailo/1._, Subjf our eHort, however i t is impottat'lt to point out ttla.t 12..$"' of the northbound trip and 25% of toU1hbOund tri p lengtha extended beyond Florid.a Georg ia, Finally CUTR woold l ike to b ri ng to you r anention the treme courtesy and ext e oeltn C.nter. "you should haw any ques.tlons or comments regarding this sutvey pleue dO not h8$itar. to me. S incerely, MiCh<).el C. Pietrzyk, P. E. SeniOr Research Associate 65


Fl<0'1: OOT -SECRETARY-AS! iEC. TQ:QJTR / IS' TrurLEI'ICTU SURVEY FORM Sbcet _j_ oC ...:1_ DOII.Ioa:LJJ..,;.6_Spr,;a Direal,;,:.1lA_ootr.o Time: 7:oo-Observer: 7??. Zf I? Cotonatn lln: h'IIPI Tnd . 2.1\JJe, nro (St12--4) 2-AJJc-, 6-. n,. (.SU2.6) S..A.IJ (SUJ) Comp;>ny Name R.TC TPAil5POIZ 7 1/P.S Rmt'"""" c-' "' l:::i. .no. Yttlow Fre;qht be W i Tr.;cl<;na )a"d be\\"' LJ, 11n -i:J;><.i G fiBF GLP 1 \Joqub C,rvl 012 D ,L,R t&n'o6v,b, Lea. Si' C' o.r 7/T'I>pU ,Q_f AI'\\.? rrhsla h.b R.PS Pmenco.n Slc"-Tno,,. Axle ConGguration C-5 mrs 5iJ2-4 c-c; tnTS C.-5 e-s c-.r:. e s tnT5 C 5 {'-e, C-5 f'nTS (' .c, (!5 ('-S c-s CS c-s c.-s 4 or Lau AJ:In (C-4) S.A.&I (C) 6 or >ft: Ada (0) Origla of Tr i p or !'oint or rncctfng I 75 J-1,.;, sP/Int:ts FL Or /c;,; FL (:;:-4) -;,,_,h. "" yi I le FL La.ladwx.d FL In ft f fp (=(._ O"a.i"Fl 2.); ldwaod ITvr11 C,,v.., (),.I o..rt do ,(.1.-f\ .T-vk'-'>midlt'. f:i. .L-4 I-to I % -..1.-10 t=L (,q I-Z7 _.t_-fO TcJI.uP OZ:-10 Tvrttp; G.;....; nil, Fl I'Ll+ f. 7 i" F"L Mhlf"'c Tnlkn j ot Sew Alfu (MT') '-A>l (MT6} 1 or on: A.tla (MM) Dalinalfon oC 'Ilip or Polo! of Exiling I 75 c: -$"r P,, 1--Geo-Tt'l+on C.a... 7 i t:J /112.con 66-fh ia.flfa. Ge. /1 A+ Ia.<"\ la.. 6c-. Go_ {;,I l ;:: Ga.. Vn 1.1" s h-1. ::;:: -6 75 lh Janie. Go.. 7l1w::on 6c.. (

TQ:CUTR / USF AL{l 2!!. 1991 t: 13Ft! 11622 P .B:J 0 TIW''!GnJ SURVEY FOJIM Sbccl 2 o( -/ -ocotloo.: /JIU:b..5f";s N/3 Dole: e(zz./w Tlme:: ___ Ob$Ct"olet.: _ .:j/'-''-d c Gn.Oa nllo : niP TtH. b lAilc. ._n,. (SUl-4) 2 \So-Tift. (.3tJ2..4) .. ).Ado (SU:l) Canpony )'lame c,. ,. "" J, ;., c R..,.ae.r a.-Alae . L'!l h t jJ /lL" j., .&air1n;s ((JA;t htrcu.>hPd r:llf. /JtUJ/) I J,.. I /ila.d ()..,; fnl rZ,u "-" /J.t:. !2.c."i.... .. t -1.:, \._Cl..l,!. Yc/lcx.o UPS He rv < t'cJu f!cmf. ,, UPS RPS Arco.d n.. n --I f Sla" y,., r.,. Axle CoollgUBllon mrs C-5 c-s C C C 5 s..:z-4 (-; CS C e-s mrs e s C-5 C S r?lTS mrs e-r. (YITS fYITS Cf\iS .svz-4 1 or LeN Mlto (Co') :O.AAK("'J 4 or DOfl AliCI (05) Odgln oC Trip or l'oml oC En< (N 7c' J:-Z$5 (G.,.) t1.-, ;:,. frm) 7 zo exrf 52 ;, (,,_ ,,_;+ 7v "' .;;,_ fh I an+ c.., Gr-/l.f./a.dc.., 6a... f.IIJkr i21 ( FL) "r, .f.f,...n 6"'-/1 1-l r...,._/ c., tf,._ ex.. 5 -v'o.l .. & e. 4Zp .. ,.,..'-1. Gc.... IS5 (6o..} 7i !f. .,,..,' Gc.... :J 57 s (6<>.) e. IS v.. /'.;,n. 6H /Im) e. .3'1 in Ga.. I() 6c..... . :;:: -8':> C'""-V


ro: OJTR / USF TRJJ" .LNG1U SURVEY FORM Sbccl or..:{_ IO!doo: W 8,/zzht Tlme.:, ___ Cotft&ll'ldOC llpl Ttcoeh . i ........... '"" (SV:I-4) 2-A&I., .s. n .. (Sin1e'-l Rm-:r \ojo.."'' C><)C.. \ 0. UJa.. Tvrnln/4 t.unpt/q_ s ....... FL l.: FL Luk R. La.k<" FL ;;;:., pa... F'L :I!() _L-tD fJ,.dJ,./f"/on 1 F" L.. X -10 I-o /1' Mllllpk Thos:Jcft S r lu.a Add (MTS) 6-AJ.Jc ()oC'n) 7 1M' aoaa Alta {MT7) Dcallon or Trip or Polo< or Exiling J-75 I-265 Tthon 6r-z-29S' e". IO on 6:.-"'-24 ( \ ;,"rna -!on !< ... I -24 (w) e..: r-f I,;, .S. ... I v<.+"-r G.-Vo.lclos +e.. b< (:"'I 6o..' .J. 2.7f' ( G<-) T-24 ( TJJ l r -"'75 Ga.. e)(, In ?wq JZ'/ /t=t) /<.f./on, 6c.. "'".r (6 ... ) v ... td-s,_ ..... Wdosa., ba. /rx;f() 7-?85 (.;.,_) ('/tta.H ,.;!/< {,.,(,-. ;\ ex:.. 35 f() 6o-'. /I I


TO: OJTR / lJSF nur-LENCm SURVI:."Y FORM of _d e<:SJ('ml: (piyt DlterJion: Nlf nm.,, ____ Observer: z?!-jl M ennauJtloa: !nla)ll Tncll 4-tltt (SUl .. ), (SIJU) :!-Ado (Sll3) Ccmpooy Nome Pre rn," 12. ETV' R.o '!. <,. 01<'. \\. \ C)\0('\ U?<; n (' ..VD /,,-.,(1_ ,, ca. I\. Cd. s; 1, ,.-<> f D.o.. l,, Aw ('oro Fna-l-Ie 1-f :;;, o.._ ,. Wa.l pa I e a N A Bc._i ol. .1 ... Cl-Eo r!faol\o Hl 'T 1::. (t:.?+vR.IOIV Sf''" Axle Coofigunouon f'.) (!$" 11\TS mrs C> ()17"5 ,, CS (.'.t; C-S" (-'\ mn So2. IYITS {.' CS c-s ..Soz-1 e-5 suz-1 c-5 C-5 C-5 .. Of (C-4) $-A:&Ic (C>) 4 or .. ,. AJJet (c::as) Origin oC TrJp od'oml of Entering I 1S Fl. hll.AI ,PI K C Mid wood Ft. FL Tu KCE FL T PII<.E. FL T.MP .. "r-r-t() fL Tut> ul"l 1<:: F /I ()ca./a. Fl /,.-<' s b()ra 1 FL v .r-10 Fl. TvtWPI kt= Fl FL lu "'->:) \-> I "(:;. Ocn-ia. FL ex. 71 ;n FL 1-lw'-\. 70 ;,, Ft:.. J:-!Q I-1<) :r-to lad., .. I FL. I-to krnp<>, FL (rnj-I-10 Mlllrf.e Tnn.n . S.,. kM A.du (M'T$) &.A.aJ (Mn) for IMW A.llca (loiT7) Deslloallon o( nip oc Polo! or Exlllng l-7S hHcn, {..._ ;;.,;. It) k (,4. 3 ) ,, :r.-47 s( 6o..) T.? I.a. I( e. f:l. r k e><+ 85 ,_, Hw" 1:<'9 FL ... ..,"". D..-,4on 1 0 H (f't. Si I r-JJ f/fla/rla., 6e.-.I--285 ('" ... ) .-.:. to 1n G .... .7-?85


Fl-= f3oskG dc:.we'-' Pr'khe +1. G +\k Ala.! J..Jvls,.n Thomas IRvCh!.G 5c \-,..., .. ,de {',+lon I).,_,\-Aust; 1"\ Aul!dos '1nd Ovee : ?;'3 s I J,. .,/ r 5on (.). !ll .Sc dl' /j011!, 1 S1&1c T,.n.,. Axle Configurauon {'-S C-5 e s C-5 c-s c-s C-5 c.-s C-5 f'C\TS C 5 C 5 c-s c-s <::-5 C-5 C-5 C-5 C-5 C-S C-5 C-5 C-5 4 O f l,.cu Aal" (C-4) 5.\.lk (CS) fli a.Git Aslei. (OS) Origin o( Trip 0< l'oiot oC Entcrlng 1 :Z:.O'S t'J(. Z8 ,;.., 6 ... 6o.. U.5. 411 (6a..) HWj;. 82 ( t;a..) e><. -'1'1 ..., Tenn. .J:'-Z-1 (1.-/>n,) 6o-T.++on 6<=-. V ... lc\o..: +"' Ga.. (<,.Z ..L-24 (T.-nt) ) -ex. + 7 ot) (!a.lhovn 6e-Chc.H. I 7JJ. lJ.J+cn / Fod FL Lc.. "" r:L I-I <..:I \ln!Cc.. FL :r-275 (FL) I-I() T-tv :I-I() Hw;.,. Bo ( l=t.) /Ohlpa., FL :T-10 :X-/0 Ft. Tu.:..AJPitcLE tkG.Ia., FL ;;..,. t>"' FL. fl.. Tv..wt>t.i!tE


FlJc. .. n .. (StJ2.() 2-A&J., .. ""'{SUU) ) Sloalt Tt-llu 4 or las (C-.4) S-NJ (C$) 6 ot DOIII Alia (OS) M-hlrf'e TrtAt,. $ ot Ill& /u.lfli (NT.$) .. (MT6) 1 OC' ..,. Juts (MT1) Compony Name tule Origin or Trip or l'oiot or Desllnatlorl or Trip or Configurotlon fnlerlng 1 Pollli or l!x!Ung 1 T-IC ..I.. -I c ACT C-5 ('-<; :Z-to C.-5 C.'hc..fl. TN' :rZ7S(F<-) t I' J mrs 'I-zes ( '""-) /I /I II ,, K+? C-5 T-2.4 (n.l) :r-4 UPS. tnTS II X-1 o e-s Tf'I1CI c-s I-l{ (TN) :J:-/u 503 :f-285 ( Ge-J T-t o


ro: OJTR / USF lUi :!Q, 1 9'3 1 1: 131'11 D622 p, 03 nur-LENGTIJ S URVEY F ORM Sbcd 4 of -/ Locolloa: kfki,. P1' Dirca l o ;;, .1"6' l1mc:. ___ .Uk C. n aullll ot: / ;I NIPf T n d t 2-A>Je, lllo (SU:Z-J .st .... 'fn,lt. .. 4 ot l.c:N Alln (Coo4) $ -Asi P} 4 e r ..,. Ad (OS) $ r kN A .dtt (MTj} "-Aala (Wn') 7 rw ... N AJ:ICII (JoCT1} We: C.U u t U ttf ... ,.. o( 100 w d , .,.,.,. C CtcJa 41rac.&.. .,.. au...t ... alllld.t la u c ll.tte. . CcmpMy Nome Axle Ori g in oC Trip or Po lot or DcsUnatloll otnlp or Coo03""1Uon Encctln a 1-75 Polol or l!xlUng J 75 {},,.,, / &cs. .T-l4 (T.,nq. l T-to holA f>ond C :r-7o (G. ... T -'Z.IS s r-. .. 1-1-0<'> c-. 5 Va.IA .... f_._ ( ('<. :rIt> e,., \.( c-s C n ... T W FL w .. ,n \),.:,<.. (-.<; v .. lOa<,-\-<'. 6o... ( ...... \ T-ID (TIJ) (J._r oil ,C-5 :z-. ::Z I(J /17c Fu (rAJ) rt. TullJ./PttlE Joesp h /.IJ.r>(. C -5 I-zr<>.e\ C-5 :FZO (Gc..\. Fl. KG. C Lo.kt Jar ,1::1 (o z ) ,, C-5 b. ra. () 1-! X-lo \v f'(\,.r( ; ,. c-s r{TIJ \ .Soz.-<\ ,, UP<; tnTS T/-1-on b.. ((.c. to ) It I o I I .5 (! 5 I-Z85 (c. .. \ /( Ro..ncu r C S :r-285 (r;.) II S:hn .. .1. c:> r .c, I-Z4 (TJJ) F L Tva.IJ I'll<: C. CS f774.c.on, 6a.... {U..,87) I-ra C h 0. n .(' r:_ c;. \ C-5 > TIJ <;. lvt4. Eaa.k c-s fN lt u .. :f to. 1 G "-r-ro ft A r o 1l nc-(.1. 5 I-t.IS (6-\ II I


TO: Cl1TR / !.SF IUl 20, 1991 t::JPM P.9J nur-LI!NG11J SURVEY FOIW Sheet _j_ of _1_ Dote: 8/u/v nme,. __ Obsuver: //1. Jf Z/ ulc Coa tJatrtllo e : lnlf)l T ndt 2A:IIc, -nrc 2-Aolc, .. ThO (SUU) ,. ..... (SU3) Comp:my Nome cF A3"F= WiW f/CT fit/.(:,/ c:!re+c. !:bll u, ffk-.d1So0 Sonco ( Jnt".kd { "'-+"r Co""' ,;.,5. {-)R.J.G4 v }(f p [J!dl /lfdce. /.JN !> Ro..u.:"s 1-lc...l I (2: ct ftYIOe (" RiL Hoe; 011 b .;r }J.IJ. 8 tiP<. F; 0 I!.J ;:, "' Reck. Sl=l' FFF l/l.<>'-1 .s sr,.ac ThUcr. Axle O>llig-lon tnr5 C-5 C-5 c s c s C-<; C 5 c-s C-5 C.-5 mrs. C-5 c5 Ct:; C 5 c s C.S C-5 C-5 c s {nit:, C-'5 C 5 C-5 or Las A>lfl (C-4) .,.,. (C5) 01 .. ,. Aakt (05) Orlgln oi Trip oc PoiDt or Entering I 1S v.,_tda c::..1 Gc.. YYlcu:o,-, Gc. Vo. I do +r-. G,_ (p; k..<. S,lmi-erv, lk Fl.. T-to 1"/ I-4 rlwq 5o S:"t. "1.:< np, k :r-Z7S" :r-4 I -to '7 o'n i'"L. -fl tvo>pl/q /( -TG..mpc... TIO I-lo


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.