Module 6: Freight, Intermodal, and

Commercial Vehicle Operations

Authored by I. Michael Wolfe, Principal, North River Consulting Group, North Marshfield,
MA, USA and Kenneth F. Troup, Senior Associate/Manager, North River Consulting Group,
Bolton, MA, USA

Purpose
The purpose of this module is to illustrate and explain major intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) applications related to commercial highway vehicle operations, including
highway and intermodal interfaces of air, ocean, or rail intermodal freight. This module also
shows how these applications deliver operating efficiencies, customer service quality
improvements, better safety, improved enforcement, and greater security assurance, as well
as how different ITS technologies and architectures relate to those benefits. Readers should
gain an appreciation of what has been tried and proven and, in many cases, what the
outcomes of those trials have been. This module should give both students and practitioners
a better understanding of how such technologies can be used to improve freight
transportation.

Objectives
This module has five objectives. Overall, the module gives readers a context—a background
in private sector freight transportation and how its use of ITS technologies relates to the
public sector. Freight transportation is a private business that involves moving cargo from
one private company to another. The public sector sometimes has an interest in freight
transportation as a shipper, but its interest is usually related to its role as a regulator or a
policymaker and provider of common-use infrastructure, such as roads. When exploring the
inter-relationships between the private and public sectors in the freight transportation realm,
the five objectives are as follows:

• Understand the different yet complementary goals of private and public sector
applications of ITS freight technologies.
• Describe public, private, and public-private examples of ITS freight applications.
• Describe the types of ITS benefits delivered to different stakeholders.
• Show how and why private and public sector ITS applications gravitated toward
different technologies and communications architectures (applications based on
vehicle-centered, long-range communications vs. infrastructure-oriented, vehicle-to-
roadside communications).
• Identify resources that readers can use to increase their understanding of ITS freight
applications.

1
Introduction
ITS applications for intermodal freight and commercial vehicle operations sit at the
intersection of commercial interests, economic productivity, public safety, and security; they
cover goods movement by all surface modes, including their interfaces with air and ocean
modes. This module highlights public and private sector ITS applications used in commercial
vehicles, freight transportation infrastructure, and freight management.

Setting the Stage: Overview of Freight Functions and Issues

Efficient transportation of domestic and international freight (shipments of raw materials and
intermediate and finished goods) is vital to the U.S. and world economies. While this module
focuses on ITS technologies in freight transportation, readers may look to the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Freight Facts and Figures
for comparative statistics showing the impact of transportation on the economy, its growth in
the last several decades, and the distribution of freight among the various transportation
modes. 1

Freight industries and their customers use information technologies (IT) and
telecommunications to improve the efficiency and productivity of their freight movements,
increase global connectivity, and enhance freight system security against common threats
and terrorism. The surface freight industries include motor carriers, railroads, ocean carriers,
and barge companies on the inland waterways. 2

IT and telecommunications technologies help the freight transportation system operate more
intelligently to improve the efficiency and reliability of cargo delivery. Most important, they do
so in ways that improve safety, whether related to hazardous materials transport, heavy
truck maintenance, or load-limit compliance. Safety improvements affect not only freight
vehicle operators, other drivers, and the public with whom the freight vehicles interact in the
transportation system, but also property (including cargo and the structures and equipment
along transportation corridors). Efficiency, reliability, return on investment to freight
transportation companies, and opportunities to enhance safety for operators and cargo are
driving forces behind the adoption of new technologies in the commercial freight industry.

A number of Federal agencies have interests in and interactions with the freight
transportation industry. DOT agencies that interact with the freight sector include FHWA, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Maritime Administration (MarAd),
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
play important roles in freight security and international trade.

2
While all of the above agencies have an interest in freight information technologies, DOT’s
FHWA and Joint Program Office (JPO) have worked collaboratively with private industry to
identify technologies that meet common goals and then have supported field tests and
evaluations. The technologies relate to applications such as:

• Intermodal truck-ocean, truck-rail, rail-ocean

• Intermodal terminals and congestion issues
• CVO clearance, compliance, and safety
• Homeland and cargo security

3
Capabilities that Private Industry Stakeholders Want from ITS

• Increase return on investment through enhanced efficiencies and cost savings

• Improve planning for the acquisition and distribution of material goods
• Support the purchase, scheduling, and rescheduling of required transportation services
• Identify freight items and packages, pallets, and shipping containers to permit comprehensive
in-transit visibility by carriers to benefit their own operations and their customers
• Improve the information flow throughout the supply chain
• Support supply chain performance evaluation and continuous improvement

Freight roles and relationships. The essential players in freight transportation are the
shipper, the carrier, and the consignee. 4 Shippers tend to be manufacturers, wholesalers, or
retailers. They originate freight shipments which may be high in value, in number of
shipments, or in size of shipments; timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of shipment
delivery are usually crucial to the success of their businesses. Shippers buy carriers’
services. Carriers perform transportation operations and sell transportation services. Carriers
(such as truck fleets) may be independent firms that provide “for hire” services or private
fleets that are part of larger businesses that ship or receive cargo. Consignees receive
shipped items. As with shippers, consignees may be manufacturers, wholesalers, or
retailers; shippers and consignees may even be parts of the same firm.

Shippers, carriers, and consignees are critically interested in the quality (the accuracy,
timeliness, and completeness) and accessibility of information about shipments and
transportation operations. With recent revolutions in IT and telecommunications, the old
saying that the information is as important as the cargo is more valid now than ever. The
information is valuable in at least two contexts: first, in terms of business logistics and supply
chain management (with respect to physical distribution, customer satisfaction, and cash
flows); and second, with ITS, because of the intimate connection between the movements of
goods and the efficiency and broader impacts of transportation networks.

Background of Freight ITS

ITS goals and applications: private vs. public sector. Contemporary freight ITS
programs weave together two very different backgrounds. To increase profits, the private

3
sector (especially long-haul truck operators) led the way with then-revolutionary ITS
technologies and tools. The public sector began more gradually, oriented toward public
safety and efficiency for regulatory compliance, toll collection, and public interests such as
energy use and air quality.

Early adopters in the private sector looked toward IT and telecommunications innovations to
support their business objectives. Innovation occurred in almost all freight sectors, as
managers and owners, shippers, carriers, and consignees looked for ways to become more
efficient (deliver the same or more services with fewer resources) and more reliable
(delivering goods in good condition, to the correct destination, and on schedule). “Intelligent
Transportation Systems” was not part of their vocabulary, but their actions were consistent
with ITS concepts.

Not all progress resulted from careful analysis and detailed planning. Perhaps the greatest
leap in trucking efficiency and profitability was a spin-off from a marketing experiment. At the
end of the 1980s, a major electronics and microchip company developed integrated satellite
location determination and fleet management telecommunications technology for the
trucking industry. This seemed like rocket science for trucking, and the supplier needed an
early adopter. A leading non-scheduled, privately-held truckload common carrier decided to
take a flyer on the satellite tracking service, figuring “even if it did not work very well, it would
be a good marketing tool with customers.” 5

The tracking technology exceeded all of the carrier’s goals, yielding significant benefits in
operating efficiencies, customer service, driver satisfaction, and truck maintenance
management. This intelligent transportation system was such a great success because it
combined a digital feed of a vehicle’s actual location that the carrier’s engineers tied together
in its IT systems with customer shipment requests, over-the-road driver interests in
maximizing loaded revenue miles and coordination of schedules with family commitments,
maintenance management, and customer support systems. Expense ratios dropped, empty-
to-loaded mile ratios plummeted, and driver turnover (a big industry problem) shrank. In
addition, customers noticed the difference in the quality and reliability of the carrier’s
services. An author of this module learned about the carrier’s improved performance in the
early 1990s from a shipper who commented on the carrier’s ability to beat every other carrier
in on-time deliveries. 6

The public sector ITS program began to crystallize in the early 1990s, and the term ITS
gained currency in the late 1990s. 7 The public sector’s CVO umbrella covered freight
movement, carrier operations, and vehicle operations, but more emphasis went toward
applications related to safety assurance, credentials administration, and electronic
screening. Those areas included public sector regulatory responsibilities to ensure freight
vehicle safety, preservation of public roadway investments against overloaded trucks, and
triage of commercial vehicles to ensure most effective use of enforcement resources. 8

4
Public sector ITS CVO programs were aimed at efficiency in the use of public resources and
in public sector demands on commercial vehicle personnel’s time. Toll collection via radio-
frequency identification (RFID) tags reduced labor for public agencies and saved time for all
vehicle drivers and passengers. More elaborate RFID applications facilitated electronic
screening and credentials administration. With the turn of the century, more public sector
emphasis shifted to using ITS applications to mitigate truck energy use and air quality
impacts.

ITS technologies and architectures: private vs. public sector. The differences in public
and private sector application priorities carried over to ITS technologies and
telecommunications architectures.

Particularly in long-haul trucking, the mix of goals and available technologies emphasized
distributed long-range mobile technologies. Vendors developed on-board computers
integrated with satellite-based location determination systems. Satellite-based wide-area
telecommunications complemented the location determination capabilities. As cellular phone
capabilities and coverage matured, many fleet-oriented ITS tools migrated to dual mode or
strictly cellular communications. The computers and communications tools monitored and
reported data from on-board sensors for cargo condition, mechanical performance, cargo
security, and driver emergencies. All the distributed capabilities were pulled together in
centralized fleet management systems, discussed later in this module under Freight ITS and
Fleet Telematics. Larger and more innovative carriers built their own systems, while others
increasingly purchased off-the-shelf or customized systems.

Other industry segments moved in different directions. For example, ocean carriers
providing intermodal container services were among early experimenters with RFID tags for
maritime containers, which they referred to as Automatic Equipment Identification (AEI). The
innovators selected a particular technology that was developed into an international
standard for RFID tags for containers. The International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) published the standard in 1991, but no industry or regulatory body mandated actual
implementation. Despite the early adoption and later amendments, the standard and RFID
technology have had little impact on the container carrier industry.9

Major North American railroads followed the container operators’ AEI progress. The
Association of American Railroads (AAR), the principal industry association, adopted similar
technology, but with an important difference. In 1991, the railroads voted to mandate
adoption and uniform placement of the AEI tag for rail equipment that moved on more than
one railroad, which became common practice. Roughly 1.2 million rail cars and 22,000
locomotives have been tagged.10

The public sector’s ITS CVO technology focus was intermediate-range RFID applications,
with transponders (tags) on trucks and readers at fixed locations, such as weigh stations and
border crossings. The technology choices followed business processes and infrastructure.

5
Not-for-profit regional groupings developed to facilitate operations and limit costs for multi-
state carriers (discussed farther in module).

Commercial carriers could choose to participate in a system or not, but the incentives
supported participation. Choosing not to participate was generally much more expensive in
terms of time lost by drivers in queues.

Moving toward convergence and collaboration. Information and telecommunications

technologies continue to improve almost simultaneously in terms of lower costs, greater
capabilities, smaller size, and improved reliability. Over the past two decades, many
technology constraints eased, and the private vs. public technology clusters blurred,
particularly with respect to motor carrier ITS. For example, the public sector-sponsored
projects on vehicle-based intelligence (such as drowsy driver detection) and vehicle-to-
vehicle interaction (such as automated driving) reflect mobile applications as well as richer
infrastructure-to-vehicle capabilities.

Interaction between private and public ITS systems is growing. For example, motor carriers
use their vehicle-mounted sensors and computers to monitor and record driver hours-of-
service performance information, which must be collected to meet Federal regulations. DOT
and other agencies are accepting automated driver log data as definitive, which has resulted
in greater confidence in compliance data and less paperwork for drivers.

Introduction to the Research and Technology Sections

As an aid to the reader, below is a synopsis of each of the detailed sections of the module.
Each contains a link to the text of the appropriate section. This allows readers to move to
areas of interest within the module quickly.

ITS Technologies for Freight and CVO

This section is a bridge between broad discussions of ITS technologies and architectures in
other parts of the ePrimer and the particular requirements of freight applications. While the
prime objectives of Module 6 involve freight applications, the authors believe readers will
learn more from the application discussions when they can place them in the context of
technologies and capabilities.

Freight Management Functions and Requirements

Private shippers, carriers, and consignees drive important freight-related requirements for
ITS. This section looks at such requirements from a private sector perspective and explains
some of the uses of information technologies in aspects of the domestic and international
logistics community.

CVO, Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks, and Gateway Facilitation
Federal, State, and other governmental bodies are concerned about safe operation of
commercial vehicles; efficient, effective administration of credentialing programs; and
enforcement of highway weight limits. This section explains Commercial Vehicle Information

6
Systems and Networks (CVISN), which is DOT’s central ITS CVO program. The section
addresses program architecture, Core and Expanded CVISN capabilities, and three
successful public-private ITS CVO programs (PrePass, NORPASS, and PierPASS). It also
addresses Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) applications and development.

Homeland and Cargo Security

The September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States heightened awareness among
transportation professionals about the need to protect against subversion of commercial
transportation systems, threats that might turn productive assets into vectors for attacks.
This section addresses the interaction between ITS capabilities, homeland security, and
cargo security. The section uses the Intelligent Road/Rail Information Server (IRRIS) and
the Defense Transportation Tracking System (DTTS) as illustrative examples.

Freight Facilitation and Electronic Freight Management

This section describes freight facilitation, including DOT’s Electronic Freight Management
(EFM) deployment tests and related freight information projects that came from the EFM
lessons learned.

Current Freight ITS Research and the Freight Advanced Traveler Information System
The Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) is DOT’s major freight-related
ITS research program. This section addresses FRATIS and other current ITS freight
research programs.

Benefits of ITS Freight Applications

The benefits of ITS freight applications are a major theme cutting across the purpose and
objectives of Module 6 and the sections. This section pulls together an overview of those
benefits, including some private sector improvements and lessons learned about
implementing freight ITS improvements.

Future Directions of ITS Freight Research

This section includes a discussion of future directions of ITS Freight Research, including
expected initiatives by the private sector.

ITS Technologies for Freight and CVO

This section sets the technology and communications architecture context for ITS freight
and CVO applications. In the authors’ experience, many people find it easier to understand
freight-related ITS applications after they have an overall sense of the main technology
choices and options. The section is also a bridge to other ePrimer modules that go more
deeply into technologies and architectures, particularly Module 2, “Systems Engineering,”
and Module 9, “Supporting ITS Technologies.”

7
The first topic is communications architecture, comparing and contrasting long-range, wide-
area mobile communications with short-range, fixed infrastructure-to-vehicle
communications.

The second topic is core ITS freight technologies. The first subset is asset tracking, which
may be applied to vehicles, cargo, critical equipment, and workers. The second subset is on-
board status monitoring. The final topic is freight data management. This includes the
integration and exchange of freight-related data within and between enterprises. It includes
event- and transaction-triggered data and actions, as well as freight performance measures.
Data management also includes concerns for data quality (authentication, accuracy,
completeness, and timeliness), data security, and privacy.

Communications Architecture
This section addresses the data communications between a truck and the networks that
carry or use its data. A truck with wide-area and long-range capability can communicate with
its base almost any time and from anywhere; a truck with short-range capability can only
communicate when within the (short) range of a transmitter/receiver.

Wide-area mobile communications. This vehicle-centered approach is a hallmark of

noteworthy accomplishments by the private sector. Each equipped vehicle has its own
communications platform, usually capable of two-way voice and/or data communications.
Mobile units capable of long range or over-the-horizon transmission enable true, near real-
time event and status-change reporting, regardless of location.

The earliest effective systems for motor carrier fleet use depended upon satellite
communications (satcom), which mostly assured geographic coverage without significant
gaps in exchange for higher per-character message rates. Satcom remains the method of
choice for managing fleets of cargo vessels at sea and for certain safety and security
applications. Cellular technology, attractive because of its less-expensive messaging,
suffered from gaps in coverage in the 1990s and early 2000s. However, cellular service
became more robust and even less expensive as carriers built out their networks. It has
become increasingly popular to offer dual- or tri-mode, least-cost-seeking communications
alternatives For example, a mobile system’s controller might first seek to use RFID or Wi-Fi
communications; if those fail, the controller could default to cellular; and if that fails, the
communications controller could default again to satcom.

The relatively higher cost of equipment per vehicle drives the cost profile for wide-area
mobile. On-board costs per vehicle have dropped dramatically over the past two decades.
However, cost is still meaningful, particularly when multiplied by the number of vehicles (and
increasingly, trailers) in large fleets. Per message and per character costs also remain higher
than for short-range solutions. Wide-area mobile’s inherent cost advantage is clear,
however, when the alternative is populating an extensive geographic network with an
infrastructure of fixed readers or read/write communications devices.

8
The benefits of wide-area mobile solutions include long range, granularity of coverage,
timeliness, and flexibility. In the event of a roll-over accident or an attempted hijacking, on-
board processors can initiate immediate emergency messages that include location
information. Regularly timed reports can feed time and location information to central
dispatch systems, which use powerful algorithms to calculate schedule adherence. Upon
receipt of a special inquiry or delivery location change, the dispatch systems can contact a
driver immediately and adapt the recommended route or schedule virtually in real time.

Short-range infrastructure-focused communications. Public and public-private sector

approaches to ITS for freight and cargo operations have typically used fixed infrastructure-
oriented telecommunications. Solutions depended generally upon some form of passive or
battery-assisted passive RFID tags on vehicles and reader/writers tethered to specific
locations, such as a toll gate or a Highway inspection station. Communication distances
could vary from several meters to perhaps 100 feet. Individual messages tended to be short
and inexpensive. An anonymous commentator neatly described three roles that RFID could
fill on a truck: “It could pay tolls, it could handle by-pass on the highway, and also could be
used as a modem to dump company data as the truck entered a yard.”11

Four programs reflected this short-range orientation. The Commercial Vehicle Information
Systems and Networks CVISN grew from concept to become the core of DOT’s ITS CVO
program; RFID transponders are a critical CVISN component to support information on
safety and credentialing. While the CVISN architecture recognizes the proliferation of mobile
communication alternatives since 2010, DOT emphasizes the importance of Dedicated
Short-Range Communication (DSRC) for operational safety. DSRC has evolved from
vehicle-to-roadside applications to increasingly include vehicle-to-vehicle applications. The
third program is DOT’s Smart Roadside Initiative, which focuses on truck-related roadside
technologies; it is part of the ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010–2014. The fourth program is
the international (particularly, European) counterpart to DSRC: Communications Access for
Land Mobiles (CALM). CALM is a program of international standards developed under ISO’s
Technical Committee (TC) 204, ITS, and CEN, the European Committee for Standardization,
TC 278, road transport, and traffic telematics. 12

The Smart Roadside Initiative was introduced in 2008. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) and FHWA identified four programs and projects to be the primary
focus of the prototype development effort. These four programs/projects are:
1. Wireless Roadside Inspections;
2. Universal Truck Identification;
3. Virtual Weigh Station/Electronic Screening; and
4. Truck Parking (Smart-Park)
USDOT initiated a project to develop an overall Smart Roadside concept of operations and
prototypes of the applications consistent with the Connected Vehicle program framework.
As part of the Smart Roadside prototype development work, system requirements and
system level architecture have been developed. 13 Smart-Park research indicates the need

9
for ITS applications to truck parking to define commercial vehicle dimensions and detect
space availability. 14

ITS applications for general use—for passenger cars—are moving toward vehicle-to-vehicle
telecommunications, as discussed in Module 13, “Connected Vehicles.” DOT has an active
Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Truck Safety Program that “aims to accelerate the development
and commercialization of commercial vehicle technologies based on V2V and vehicle-to-
infrastructure (V2I) wireless communication using DSRC.”15 As we will discuss in the section
on “Future Directions of ITS Freight Research,” the DOT National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) will consider the technical maturity and benefits of V2V in 2013 for
light vehicles and in 2014 for heavy vehicles.

The cost profile of short-range infrastructure–oriented communications emphasizes lower

costs per vehicle and higher costs on the land side. RFID transponder-based solutions are
especially inexpensive per vehicle. The system deployment cost, however, can be much
higher when the concept calls for a relatively dense distribution of RFID reader/writers over a
network or a series of trade lanes. 16 However, when the operating concept calls for less
dense reader/writer networks (such as highway enforcement stations) and large numbers of
vehicles, the costs become more manageable. V2V communications cost profiles differ
because the on-board technology must be more sophisticated and expensive because of
fail-safe anti-crash requirements.

The benefit profile of short-range telecommunications offers highly reliable confirmation of

simple transactions, especially identification of a unique vehicle, driver, or load at a particular
time and place. Such confirmation can be tied to many database applications, such as tolls,
credentials, and enforcement. This is particularly true when the conditions on the ground
encourage tight operating discipline (e.g., all vehicles must transit a toll booth); the benefits
shrink in the face of unanticipated operating flexibilities (e.g., the ability to bypass a terminal
gate).

Core ITS Freight Technologies

The authors consider the three critical technologies for freight ITS to be asset tracking, on-
board status monitoring, and data management. This subsection discusses the first two, and
the following subsection addresses data management. We also discuss other core
technologies.

Asset tracking concerns the whereabouts of freight transportation assets such as trucks,
trailers, intermodal containers, chassis, and the cargo associated with such equipment. It
includes tools that report if a vehicle or shipment is adhering to a prescribed route. Asset
tracking is a critical input into monitoring schedule adherence; it is essential to enhanced
carrier fleet management and shipper/consignee supply chain visibility.

10
Asset tracking is the most important single cluster of technologies for private sector ITS
freight applications, and global geographic location determination is the critical foundation
piece for asset tracking. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is the best known and most-
frequently used wide-area location determination system. Fame has its price, however, and
many people conceive of GPS as being much more than it is—as described in the box
below.

GPS is Not a Fleet Management System

GPS is an immensely valuable tool for many ITS and other transportation-related applications.
However, it is a contributory tool, not an ITS solution. Many people use the term as a short-hand way
to describe robust, wide-area fleet management systems. Careless use of the term could lead an ITS
professional into a misunderstanding.

GPS is a tool, a network of special-purpose satellites that provides signals used by GPS receivers or
transponders to calculate their geographic location. GPS receivers use the signals from multiple
satellites to calculate their latitude and longitude to precise degrees. Other systems use the location
data and may include it in one- or two-way communication systems. GPS itself is not a communication
system.

No motor carrier has a GPS fleet management system.

Most fleet management systems, however, depend heavily on GPS inputs.

Fixed signpost RFID solutions are not real-time location trackers, despite occasional
advertising claims to the contrary. Such systems can report accurate location information
only at the moment when a transponder-equipped asset is within range of the
reader/signpost. As time passes (for instance, when an asset is between or away from
transponders), the value of the data ages and degrades. The ability to identify current
location at will, at any time, and for any reason is significantly more robust and potent.

On-Board Status Monitoring. This is the realm of sensor technologies. Vehicle operating
parameters (from road speed to engine RPMs to coolant temperatures to tire pressures and
much more) are crucial inputs for carrier maintenance management systems, preventive
maintenance programs, and even crash avoidance prior to a developing tire failure or tip-
over. Cargo condition sensors for temperature, impact forces, and container pressure have
long been used to assure the value and safety of consignments. Security sensors most
commonly include intrusion and seal tamper detection (for security against cargo crimes,
illegal smuggling, and terrorist threats); another type of security sensor is a “panic button” or
emergency call activator for drivers. Driver behavior sensors promise safety improvements
from sensors such as drowsiness detection. Some fleet monitoring systems include real-
time video and vehicle data monitoring that can capture driving behavior and surrounding
traffic, transmit that information to the carrier’s data center, and be viewed later by
management or for training purposes. 17 While such systems may raise privacy concerns

11
among drivers, the systems’ appeal is growing among truck manufacturers and DOT safety
regulators.

At least three different modes take advantage of on-board monitor data; the choice of modes
depends on user priorities, communications capabilities, and cost trade-offs. The choices
range from store-and-forward (for downloading and off-line analysis after the end of a
shipment) to interactive transmission (especially of safety- and security-related indicators) to
instant driver notification.

Intelligent Freight Technologies

18
DOT published this useful typology of intelligent freight technologies in 2005. It blends underlying
technologies and sets of ITS freight applications.

Asset Tracking and Freight Status Information primarily concern private sector shippers, carriers, and
consignees. Gateway Facilitation is mostly the classic cluster of public and public/private sector CVO
applications. On-Board Status Monitoring historically has been of more concern to the private sector,
but heightened safety and security priorities have increased public sector interest in this area. Finally,
Network Status Information garners interest from public and private sector interests—and from non-
freight stakeholders as well. Freight and Network Status Information, as the names imply, both require
major database management and display components.

12
Source: The Freight Technology Story, 2005, p.12.

Gateway Facilitation technologies tie in very closely with CVO, and we will address those
technologies later in this module under CVO, Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and
Networks, and Gateway Facilitation.

Freight Status Information and Network Status Information, as the names imply, require
major data management and access capabilities; they are the focus of the next subsection.

Freight ITS and Fleet Telematics

Increasing numbers of people, particularly in Europe, describe Asset Tracking and On-Board
Monitoring together as “Fleet Telematics.”

“Fleet telematics refers to the integration of telecommunication and information processing

systems to gather and make sense of data relating to fleet activity. … [I]nsight generated

13
 help[s] fleet managers to plan and deploy vehicles effectively and manage fleet maintenance
and activity to save time and money and offer customers a reliable, high quality service. The
systems comprise of two separate parts; the tracking units that are fitted in the vehicles and
the vehicle tracking software that creates reports and alerts from the data recorded by the
units. … Fleet telematics systems can be used strategically and tactically to increase fleet
efficiency and improve customer satisfaction…”

A relatively new, somewhat promising topic of discussion is “Synergize Insurance with Fleets:
Understand fleet operators’ key solution requirements such as accurate driving behaviour profiles to
19
align insurance offerings with fleet managers’ operations.”

Freight Data Management

Information about what is moving is often as important as the freight itself. Historically, freight
transportation paperwork was notoriously late, incomplete, and inaccurate; an old industry
saying was “The cargo moves in spite of the paperwork, not because of it.” In the 1960s and
’70s, the railroad and trucking industries pioneered efforts to automate freight information
flow. They implemented systems within their companies to help manage the flow of freight
data. They also worked with their customers toward automating business transactions
including ordering of transportation, billing information, visibility of shipments, and automated
payment of bills. The railroads introduced Car Location Messages so that railroad
interchange partners as well as shippers and receivers could know the status and
whereabouts of shipments. Industry leaders promoted freight data standards such as
electronic data interchange (EDI) for domestic and international shipments.

With widespread use of the Internet, carriers began implementing websites that their
customers could use to order transportation and to check on the status of shipments. Parcel
delivery firms such as United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx) became
legendary for their automated freight data and their ability to provide an individual customer
with precise information about the status of a shipment.

Increasing numbers of railroads, trucking companies, ocean carriers, and firms like UPS and
FedEx made great strides at implementing and integrating freight data within their
companies. Leading large shippers also automated information flows within their companies,
but, for a variety of reasons, inter-company integration of freight management data has been
more difficult to implement.

Nonetheless, shippers, consignees, and logistics service providers made important and
substantial improvements in supply chain data quality and accessibility. “Source data
automation” often meant that transactions, such as a terminal gate entry, could generate
status messages. Shipment visibility improved with transaction and status data available on
carrier websites or, increasingly, computer-to-computer and Internet data links. Delays or
unexpected changes in shipment plans could trigger alerts for supply chain partners. More
sophisticated data analytics enabled firms and their partners to better plan shipment routing
and scheduling.

14
The public sector uses freight data for tactical and strategic purposes. Individual shipment
information can be critical for CVO safety and regulatory enforcement. Aggregated data,
however, is important for State, regional, and Federal project planning and policymaking.
FHWA’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) is a comprehensive array of tools and data on
freight network flows. FHWA and other stakeholders have been developing “[f]reight-specific
performance measures [that] help to identify needed transportation improvements and
monitor their effectiveness. They also serve as indicators of economic health and traffic
congestion.” 20 Examples of freight-specific performance measures include truck travel times
on major corridors, dwell or waiting time in a railroad yard or ocean container terminal,
average truck speed, or number of hazardous materials released.

The Importance and Evolution of Freight Data

Gough Grubb of retailer Stage Stores said: “The biggest change in 40 years is increased availability of
data. We’re now at 93% advance ship notice (an electronic packing slip) utilization. With that
information, the receiving process is more efficient with scanning of cartons instead of count, sort, and
stack…We have a transportation management system that helps optimize loads. When we first
installed the system in 2002, we compared calculated routes with those created by people and
questioned the automated recommendations. But they looked at the data and found the calculations
21
were lower in miles and costs.”

Freight data is sensitive. Detailed shipment data can reveal sensitive proprietary information.
Shippers and consignees consider information about their shipments to be their property;
carriers have a similar view about their business between origin-and-destination pairs. Public
sector data-related projects pay careful attention to assuring the security and privacy of
corporate data. For example, freight performance measures data is aggregated and
scrubbed to remove identifying information before use. Industry concerns are barriers to
data sharing with the public sector and often impede the wider adoption of otherwise-
successful freight data enhancement projects. 22 For example, effective optimization for
projects such as Cross-Town Improvement Project (C-TIP) calls for interaction of systems
among dray carriers, and some carriers are resistant (see below for more details about C-
TIP). Module 12, “Institutional Issues,” has further discussion of privacy issues in
transportation data.

Freight Management Functions and Requirements

This section discusses the use of information exchange and ITS technologies by private
sector companies in the freight and logistics industry. It includes examples of the uses of the
technologies in different aspects of freight management.

For the shipper and consignee, the freight movement problem is part of a larger logistics
problem: as a business, how can I ensure that I always have the physical things I need

15
where I need them, when I need them? 23 Physical things may include raw materials,
components, and finished goods. In a broader sense, they may include in-process materials,
maintenance parts, consumable suppliers, tools, and capital equipment. Logistics is the
business activity that ensures that physical goods are available in a timely manner, at the
required location, and in the required condition to support other functions of the business.

Shippers and consignees are looking for improved levels of transportation service and are
very cost conscious. As more than a few carrier executives put it, “Shippers are demanding
better service, and they are willing to pay less to get it.” This creates a highly competitive
transportation environment.

Integrated Logistics Management

The scope of the logistics function varies greatly among businesses. The box below shows a
list of possible functions that a corporation may consider as falling within the scope of
business logistics.

24
Scope of Business Logistics Activities

• Sales forecasting
• Purchasing
• Inbound transportation
• Intra-company transportation
• Outbound transportation
• Raw material/work-in-progress inventory control
• Finished goods inventory
• Finished goods field warehousing
• Order processing
• Customer service
• Logistics systems planning
• Facilities design
• Materials management
• Logistics administration
• International logistics
• Capital equipment procurement
• Computer processing for distribution applications

Traditionally, logistics professionals focused on transportation, warehousing, and inventory

management. More recently, some companies are taking a broader view, but with the same
objective, to provide the physical resources necessary to support business activities when
and where required. Leading edge companies are integrating these logistics activities to a
much higher degree. It may involve integrating information systems for each of these
functions to make cross-functional management and coordination possible. Logistics
management focuses on all aspects of the supply chain and means that companies need to

16
collaborate and often exchange freight data with many diverse partners. Formerly manual
processes and documents have been automated. These include electronic bills of lading,
acknowledgments of receipt, and even automated bill payment, which can improve the cash
flow of all parties to the transaction. It has become increasingly productive to use state-of-
the-art communications, information technologies, and data analytics together with core
supply chain partners. Some shippers and carriers consider logistics and supply chain
management to be core competencies and maintain them internally; others outsource many
of the functions and tasks to specialty providers such as third party logistics providers
(3PLs).

Just-in-Time Manufacturing
Just-in-time manufacturing reduces inventories by having raw materials and components
arrive at a manufacturing site directly from their source at the time required for continuing
manufacturing operations. The margin of error in delivery time is typically less than an hour.
This approach saves on inventory costs for the manufacturer, but it puts more stress on
transportation.

Disruptions from terrorist threats or attacks (such as 9/11) and from natural disasters (such
as Hurricanes Katrina or Sandy) had impacts on supply chains and transportation; ultimately,
these led to research and processes involving supply chain resiliency and “just-in-case”
logistics. Shippers still desire to keep inventories low, but some have decided to maintain
enough slack and discipline in the system to adapt quickly and effectively during natural
disasters and other transportation system disruptions.

Supply Chain Management

Both shippers and carriers have employed Transportation Management Systems (TMS) to
help them make complicated decisions such as modal or intermodal choice, routing,
equipment utilization, and carrier selection. Large firms developed TMS as custom systems,
and then many moved to server-based systems. These systems continue to evolve,
becoming accessible to more and smaller firms via the trend toward cloud-based software-
as-a-service (SAAS).

Particularly with the increases in online retail customer ordering and e-commerce, supply
chains have become more complex, demanding even greater speed and service reliability.
The trend is for smaller, more frequent shipments and a shift toward parcel shipping away
from traditional, less-than-truckload (LTL) or larger shipments. TMS systems evolved to
support parcel shipping, a departure from earlier truckload (TL) and LTL focus. Globalization
of sourcing and assembly required more automated capabilities to handle more complex
international shipments. Many shippers coped with higher fuel costs and tighter margins by
increasing use of intermodal truck-rail. This resulted in large increases in intermodal
volumes, including routine use by major trucking companies. With diesel fuel still in the
vicinity of $4 per gallon in 2013, the trend continues. Another important trend in supply chain
management has been the significant complexity in supply chains for e-commerce led by
the success of [Link]. Their success has also led to more and smaller shipments,

17
many via the large parcel services such as UPS and FedEx. Sophisticated capabilities used
by most large shippers to support global supply chain management by all modes include: 25

• multiple language interface screens

• cross-border fees and value added taxes where applicable
• freight settlement and automated invoicing
• interfaces to financial systems
• item visibility to the shipment, pallet, and box level
• performance metrics (e.g. on-time delivery, damage in transit)
• optimization of routes, carriers, rates, and performance

An annual survey of international shippers by American Shipper magazine reinforces and

amplifies the trends discussed above. 26 Figure 1 is an indicator of where shippers’ and 3PLs’
priorities lie in terms of international TMS functionality. Tracking and tracing is the most
significant function, yet more than 40 percent of respondents still say they lack that function,
and around half say they want to add or improve on the tracking and tracing capability they
already have. Meanwhile, connectivity, freight invoice management, order management, and
analytics are clearly future priorities.

18
Figure 1. Current and Planned ITM Functionality

Source: International Transportation Management Benchmark Study: Getting More From

Less, American Shipper, 2012.

The American Shipper survey found that there is no single delivery model for TMS software
capability. There is movement toward more SAAS platforms or cloud-based systems,
increasing from 18% in 2009 to 29% in 2012; however, the more traditional models are not
nearly obsolete. Customized packages or in-house developments decreased from 30% in
2009 to 24% in 2012.

Some commodity suppliers and retailers, such as food and pharmaceuticals manufacturers,
employ technology to trace lots and shipments, which reinforces carriers’ needs to track
equipment. Some shippers use RFID and shipment tracking and tracing at the lot as well as
shipment level. Bar codes and RFID data feeds tie into existing inventory and warehouse
systems. 27

19
There are active examples of commercial and public sector web-based freight portals.
Carriers and 3PL companies offer websites to their customers for equipment reservations,
rates, shipment status, and pick-up information.

In the mid-1990s, the Department of Defense (DOD) began to use active data-rich RFID
tags to track ocean-going containers and airfreight pallets. As a large shipper concerned
about the visibility of its freight, DOD loaded manifest information onto the data-rich tags.
Readers at terminals and gateways throughout the world provided location information. 28
Later DOD and Wal-Mart took the lead in requiring vendors to tag shipments with package-
and pallet-level passive RFID tags.

With additional data available from supply chain partners and with more powerful computing
power, there is a trend toward optimization applications and predictive analytics to further
improve supply chain management. Some shippers are experimenting with optimization
routines to plan future shipments; some carriers are testing route optimization to improve the
utilization of trucks and other assets. For example, Qualcomm and ALK offer this kind of
application. Their truck optimization solution calculates optimal truck-specific routes. It
provides constant access to on-board highway and street maps combined with PC-Miler
commercial truck routing system. Detailed voice instructions use text-to-speech
technology. 29 TomTom is another in-cab system that provides truck-specific routes for
drivers. Widespread use of optimization applications would mean increased efficiencies in
freight movements. DOT is funding current research to develop open source optimization
algorithms for dray trucks between shippers and ocean or rail terminals. (See the FRATIS
discussions below.)

Military Logistics is Important Business

DOD is the largest single customer of commercial freight transportation. The 1990 Gulf War increased
demands for data integration and accessibility for commercial containers carrying military equipment.
The Gulf War spawned vigorous programs to enhance Intransit Visibility (ITV) and Total Asset Visibility
(TAV). The programs attempted to tie together information from DOD’s distribution and transportation
management systems, including commercial carrier data about events and transactions in the supply
chain, updated all the way into the military theater of operations. The Gulf War also spawned
experiments and then fielded programs with automatic identification RFID tags to feed data to ITV and
TAV. DOD’s initiatives and lessons learned were catalysts that accelerated the spread of RFID
applications to commercial logistics management.

While there were improvements that helped DOD manage its military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan,
their experience has shown how difficult it is to implement ITV in a large and complex organization.
According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study published in 2013, there are 34 different
ITV and TAV efforts in the various components of DOD with no single organization overseeing or
30
directing all of the efforts.

20
Carrier Fleet Management
Within a transportation carrier, particularly trucking companies, there are important efforts in
managing the transportation assets, whether they are tractors, intermodal containers,
container chassis, or truck trailers. ITS technologies and freight management data play key
roles in managing carrier assets. 31

Container, chassis, and trailer utilization. Tractor and truck tracking with mobile
communications and location determination is highly advanced and productive in many
segments of the trucking industry. In the 1990s, the innovators were the irregular route
truckload carriers, which reaped significant benefits per tractor per year as these
technologies evolved into industry best practices. As costs drop and successful experience
continues to accumulate, usage has been spreading to other industry segments, including
LTL and drayage. GPS has played an increasingly important role in maintaining truck
location information within urban and regional areas.

Chassis and trailer tracking marries mobile tracking technologies to these dependent
conveyances. First generation products faltered around the turn of this century because of
technical performance and battery issues, but economics has been the biggest barrier. The
CEO of the largest U.S. truckload carrier said in 1999 that he thought “the next revolution” in
fleet management would be un-tethered trailer tracking, but the costs were not yet right. By
2004, second-generation products gained more acceptance in the market, with roughly
80,000 units in commercial use.

There were many tests and demonstrations of container security and visibility technologies
in the three or four years immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In
the end, most applications were technically immature, economically premature, and failed in
the marketplace without government mandates for deployment (see Post 9/11 ITS-Like
Technology and Business Initiatives).

From a technical perspective, container tracking is a close cousin of chassis and trailer
tracking, but container tracking faces more challenging hurdles. While chassis and trailers
are unlikely to leave the United States (let alone North America), the free-flow global nature
of the container business makes it much harder to recover the value of an investment in a
maritime container tracking device—most investors cannot count on repetitive use of the
same container.

The freight transportation industries have long used cargo and freight condition sensors.
Perhaps best known, temperature sensors and recorders improve the quality and
accountability for perishable shipments. Pressure and toxic substance sensors enhance the
safety of hazardous materials (hazmat) shipments. Accelerometers tied with GPS help
ensure that rail and highway impacts and shocks stay within contracted limits, help assign
responsibility for problems, and help map problem patterns. DOT sponsored operational
tests of such technology on U.S. domestic truck and intermodal routes; the equipment
included change-of-status detection for tethered or un-tethered chassis.

21
A DOT-sponsored test in the Pacific Northwest deployed a prototype Web-based border and
port terminal screening system, the Trade Corridor Operating Systems (TCOS), which
integrated CVISN transponder and e-seal reader network data. TCOS was the focal point
that enabled users to cross-reference data and link key information for customs clearance.

Vehicle/power unit location and condition. There are established and growing demands for
on-board status information related to freight vehicles and their cargoes. Most solutions
simply collect sensor data to transmit en route or store for download at the destination. More
robust solutions collect the data, evaluate it, and trigger autonomous actions without prior
authorization from central dispatch. An extreme example of the latter, developed in South
Africa, is a series of internal pepper gas dispensers to discourage thieves who trigger trailer
intrusion detection alarms. A more benign example is automatic restart circuits on
refrigerated containers.

Many truckers use tractor-mounted RFID transponders, but more for compliance facilitation
and toll payment than for fleet tracking. Some of the Pacific Northwest DOT tests used those
applications to monitor the progress of containers drayed along the I-5 corridor between
Seattle/Tacoma and the Canadian border. One of those DOT tests used Washington State’s
port-to-border crossing “TransCorridor” transponder network to track progress as trucks
passed under reader antennas at weigh stations, port terminal gates, and border crossings.
In the southeast, DOT tested a near-market-ready container chassis tracking system called
Cargo*Mate. It packaged GPS, cellular communications, sensors, and a battery within the
container chassis frame to improve chassis fleet visibility and management; when the
chassis were loaded, Cargo*Mate also improved management of containers and cargo
associated with the chassis. An important mid-2000s hazardous materials test involving
DOT tested un-tethered trailer tracking, but the focus was less on fleet efficiency than on
using the technology to ensure the security and safety of high hazard commodity shipments.

Some truck fleet operators use sensor data on vehicle operating parameters, such as
engine revolutions per minute, highway speed, tire pressure, and brake wear. The
information helps managers anticipate maintenance problems and reinforce safe and
efficient driver behavior.

Driver and vehicle scheduling. Carrier scheduling support is closely related to the
transportation Web-based freight portals and congestion alerts and avoidance. Fleet and
terminal manager software systems may be programmed to incorporate feeds from regional
congestion monitoring portals. At the simple end, dispatchers simply pass along bottleneck
information to drivers; more complicated solutions may include dynamic adjustment of trip
schedules and strategic shifts in operating policy, such as moving to more nighttime
operations. Fleet management software may be useful in accounting for hours of service,
time on duty, mandatory rest stops, and similar Federal regulations on drivers. Software can
also be applied to situations where loads travel between terminals and change drivers.

22
UPS has a cloud-based technology platform that allows shippers to more efficiently
collaborate with international suppliers. The system allows more accurate and timely
overseas vendor bookings, near real time shipment status, detailed line level visibility of in-
transit inventory, facilitation of purchase order consolidation, and optimized shipping plans. 32
All of these capabilities and interactions with customers allow carriers like UPS to better
schedule their own vehicles and other assets.

Port and Terminal Congestion Management

The growth in ocean container traffic increases pressure on U.S. seaports, most of which
are in urban areas. Congestion costs the carriers, shippers, and consignees money, and
port truck congestion spills over onto the highways and surrounding urban areas. Important
terminal control systems have been installed at most of the U.S. ports, and several studies
of terminal operations have tried to understand the specifics of terminal management and
congestion and investigate possible solutions.

One such series of projects was conducted at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
over a period of years from 2006 to 2012. The projects captured GPS data from 250 dray
trucks at the ports. Port operators and truckers formed a Truck Turn Time Stakeholders
Group that oversaw the turn time analysis project. A consulting firm analyzed the data and
made recommendations to the stakeholder group. The project looked at queue waiting time
to enter the terminal as well as terminal time to pick up or deliver a container at the port.
Analysis of 6 months of data showed where bottlenecks occurred. The project was
undertaken because trucking and terminal operator stakeholders wanted to improve terminal
operations by better understanding and hopefully reducing truck delays. 33 The project
developed models to synchronize truck arrivals with port operations. Container stack
management strategies, gate appointment systems, and truck queue management used
GPS data collected at the ports to realize efficiencies and improvements in terminal velocity.

Real-time location systems (RTLS) are being integrated with yard management systems
(YMS) to provide greater visibility, keeping track of every trailer and its inventory. 34 The
FRATIS project described below is analyzing and working to improve drayage truck
movements into terminals while reducing terminal delay times. Several port authorities and
private firms (such as e-Modal) mix web access to port-based information (such as ship
arrivals) with terminal gate congestion information. Some ports and terminals use
appointment systems and others do not, but most have automated the inbound and
outbound gate processes in order to improve terminal efficiency and limit the amount of time
a trucker has to spend at the terminal. These systems and processes may be more
important in the future with hours of service changes so that drivers can get in and out as
quickly as possible. The technologies include wireless systems that integrate with active or
passive RFID and GPS. Some software providers are beginning to introduce in-cab software
applications that tie in with yard management and provide graphical representation of the
yard to help direct the driver to the proper entrance, pick-up or drop-off location, and exit. 35

23
Congestion alerts and avoidance capabilities of many urban ITS applications are useful to
many transportation stakeholders and especially important to freight operators in and around
crowded gateways, such as ocean terminals and border crossings. Current data from
cameras, road sensors, and other sources can be fed into predictive models and distributed
via web portals and other means. The Freight Information Real-Time System for Transport
(FIRST) was a port-wide system that displayed videos of terminal gates and surrounding
roadways for subscribers in the Port of New York/New Jersey. In a DOT-sponsored test,
FIRST worked technically and provided useful information, but institutional and competitive
issues among some participants precluded active use after the test. Ports in Vancouver, BC,
and Virginia’s greater Hampton Roads area have operational systems with similar
capabilities.

Long queues of idling trucks obviously produce emissions issues. Numbers of public sector
environmental agencies work closely with ports and carriers to measure air pollution.
Analyses in C-TIP and FRATIS (discussed below), as well as some of the studies in port
areas, have computed the expected emissions reductions from technological improvements
at the ports and terminals.

CVO, Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks, and

Gateway Facilitation
ITS CVO embodies the yin and yang of enforcement and facilitation. CVO programs and
related activities, with increasing success, enable accomplishment of seemingly oppositional
goals at the intersection of public sector regulations and motor carrier compliance.

Public regulatory interests include safety assurance (safety records, screening, and
inspections), special permitting (oversize/overweight (OS/OW)), credentials and tax
administration (hazmat, licensing, and much more), and driver authentication (commercial
driver’s license (CDL) and biometrics). Public business interests include effective use of
scarce inspection resources, efficient toll and credential processing, and quick, reliable
exchange of information with other jurisdictions and carriers. Carrier business interests
include minimizing burdens of regulatory compliance, reducing potential bottlenecks and lost
productive time at inspection stations, reducing those impacts relative to certain
competitors, 36 and optimizing safety performance, insurance costs, and customer
satisfaction.

Effective implementation of gateway facilitation technologies is the foundation of successful

CVO programs. Such programs enable the simultaneous accomplishment of public and
private interests. Many benefits have already been delivered and, in the spirit of continuous
improvement, more are on the way.

The CVISN program is the core of ITS CVO. The first subsection explains the CVISN
architecture and how it fits into the National ITS Architecture. The second subsection

24
addresses the core and expanded capabilities. The final subsection reports on examples of
CVISN and CVO deployment.

CVISN Architecture
CVISN is DOT’s central CVO program, and Figure 2 highlights the CVO subsystems in an
overview of the National ITS Architecture. (The figure is from a clear and easy-to-use CVISN
report on FMCSA’s website.37) The diagram is here to give readers a sense of CVISN’s
breadth, diversity, and complexity.

Figure 2. CVO Subsystems in the National ITS Architecture 38

The Commercial Vehicle Administration “Center” represents the public and regional
agencies that administer CVO activities and exchange information with each other, as in
credentialing. These Centers usually communicate with Field Activities that perform
inspections and provide other services. Field Activities communicate with commercial
vehicles via RFID transponders mounted on the vehicles, which interact with roadside
readers. (This is an application of DSRC.) The vehicle-roadside links facilitate roadside
check and inspection operations.

The diagram helps illustrate some of the differences and interfaces between private sector
and public-private ITS applications. The architecture includes Fleet and Freight
Management Centers, but such Centers are parts of private firms, not creatures of the public
ITS program. In the architecture, these Centers interface with public CVO applications
related to credentials, taxes, and drivers. However, carrier executives would point out that
the Centers’ primary purpose is to support carrier business: they provide dispatch
operations, cargo tracking, customer interfaces, hazmat management, fleet maintenance
management, security, and other functions. 39 The interfaces with ITS CVO functions, while

25
important and valuable, are ancillary to the core purpose of transporting cargo for
customers.

CVISN’s Commercial Vehicle Subsystem—the on-board equipment—includes capabilities

that serve both the CVO program and the operator’s business interests:

• CV Electronic Data (supporting communication of IDs and other messages)

• Trip Monitoring (for asset tracking and fuel reporting)
• Cargo Monitoring (monitoring cargo condition)
• CV Safety and Security (collecting and sharing safety and security information)
• Driver Authentication (for identifying driver changes)

Electronic tools to manage and track most of these on-board capabilities are optional for
carriers; in most cases, the business argument for installation strongly favors adoption, but
that is qualitatively different from a regulatory mandate.

CVISN Capabilities
The CVISN Program defines two levels of capabilities, Core and Expanded. Core CVISN
includes compatibility with CVISN principles and standards, basic capabilities for information
exchange, credentials administration, electronic screening, and expandability. Expanded
CVISN is an almost open-ended menu of additional applications and more extensive
deployments: the program offers suggested examples, not limits. This subsection explains
the Core and Expanded programs and illustrates a central component technology: Weigh-in-
Motion (WIM).

Core CVISN capabilities rest on three foundational elements: an organizational framework

for cooperative system development between a State’s public agencies and motor carriers; a
State CVISN System Design that can evolve to include new technical capabilities; and
implementation of three specific functional capabilities. The system design and functional
capabilities must use applicable standards and guidelines in accordance with FMCSA’s
CVISN program.40

In a broad sense, Core CVISN capabilities include:

“Electronically collecting and exchanging safety performance and credentials

information within the State and among States, Federal agencies, and motor carriers;

“Deploying transponder technology to identify and electronically screen commercial

vehicles at mainline speeds; and

“Using websites or computer-to-computer exchange for motor carrier companies to

apply for, review and pay registration fees and returns on fuel taxes with State
agencies and for States to participate in the International Registration Plan (IRP) and
International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) clearinghouses.” 41

26
These broad statements translate into three specific capabilities to be “checked off”:

1. Safety Information Exchange. All major inspection sites in each State use standard
formats to report data directly or indirectly to FMCSA’s Safety and Fitness Electronic
Records (SAFER) system. CVO Administration Centers in the State connect to
SAFER. Agencies have deployed the Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange
Window (CVIEW) or an equivalent capability. CVIEW enables exchange of data
among State agencies and, together with SAFER, with other states.
2. Credentials Administration. CVO Administration Centers and carriers can exchange
and process information automatically via Internet or computer-to-computer links.
Core CVISN “includes carrier applications, State application processing, credential
issuance, and tax filing” for at least the IRP and the IFTA. CVO Administration
Centers must be capable of including other credentials, but not necessarily have
implemented other credentials capabilities. In all cases, automated processing
includes posting updates and changes to SAFER for immediate interstate
accessibility.
3. Electronic Screening. In Core CVISN at least one fixed or mobile inspection site is
able to use SAFER/CVIEW and other data snapshots to support screening
decisions, and the State’s agencies are ready to replicate the capability at other
inspection sites. 42

Readers interested in a graphic illustration of SAFER/CVIEW exchange of electronic data

can find it here, on page 39.

Expanded CVISN. Expanded CVISN is a flexible range of possibilities, not a prescribed

slate of capabilities. As long as implementations remain compliant with CVISN’s standards
and architecture, jurisdictions may expand beyond Core deployments according to their own
priorities.

43
FMCSA’s Five Examples of Expanded CVISN Projects

Virtual Weigh Stations

A virtual weigh station is a roadside enforcement facility that does not require continuous
staffing and is monitored from another location. Virtual weigh stations are established for a
variety of purposes depending on the priorities and needs of each jurisdiction. Typical
purposes include safety enforcement, data collection, security (e.g., homeland security, theft
deterrence), and size and weight enforcement. These sites may use a variety of sensor
components to collect data, such as a WIM installation, a camera system, and wireless
communications.

License Plate Readers

License Plate Recognition (LPR) is an image-processing technology used to identify vehicles
by their license plates. Some states have implemented this technology to augment e-

27
 screening capabilities.

Oversize/Overweight Permitting
While IRP and IFTA e-credentialing were requirements of Core CVISN, electronic support for
permitting has been an interest of both industry and State personnel. Oversize/overweight
(OS/OW) loads are special case shipments that exceed the operational parameters defined
by the State. The correct routing of these shipments makes sure that mobility, safety, and
security concerns are addressed. A number of states are actively involved in projects
involving OS/OW electronic permitting and route planning, and some are incorporating bridge
analysis into their OS/OW systems.

One-Stop Shops and Electronic Portals

A Web portal or one-stop shop can provide a way for a State to give a consistent look and feel
across multiple applications for back-office users, enforcement, and motor carriers. A State
may provide an electronic one-stop shop through which motor carriers can access the State's
IRP, IFTA, and OS/OW permitting systems. Such a portal may provide single sign-on access
to all users, which would allow a user to log in to the portal using a username and password
and then be directed to specific credentialing applications without having to log in again.

Driver Information Sharing

Given that high-risk drivers are involved in a disproportionate number of crashes, the driver
information sharing area of Expanded CVISN is likely to have a large impact on safety. A
State's CVIEW could be enhanced to include driver information, improving an enforcement
officer's ability to check driver credentials for safety problems. Card-swiping devices and
biometrics may be included in the system for linking the driver in the vehicle to his or her CDL.

Weigh-in-Motion. State inspection stations pay particular attention to screening overweight

trucks and enforcing gross vehicle weight and axel weight requirements. Vehicles carrying
too much weight are safety risks via crashes and breakdowns that obstruct traffic. In
addition, excess weight has an exponential impact on roadways, significantly accelerating
deterioration. Highways represent significant public investments, and reasonable weight
restrictions protect the life of those investments. Finally, abuse of weight limits gives a
successful evader a business advantage over compliant competitors—evaders deliver more
cargo with fewer trips and fewer driver hours. Weight limit enforcement rewards compliant
carriers by keeping the playing field level, and the enforcement also serves as a deterrent for
carriers subject to temptation. WIM, described in the box below, is a potent tool to increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of weight limit enforcement.

Weigh-in-Motion
The “Holy Grail” for Weight Limit Enforcement

Readers “of a certain age” are more likely to recall driving by or through fixed highway weigh stations.
For a long time, static scales, high in accuracy and relatively low in cost, were the primary means of
inspecting for and detecting overweight vehicles. Static scales are well-suited to low traffic volumes
but much less effective as truck volumes increase. If enforcement officials try to inspect many trucks in

28
a limited time, one of two things is likely to happen: significant congestion, delays, and many unhappy
stakeholders, or “waving through” most trucks without a check; neither outcome yields effective or
efficient enforcement.

WIM technologies are not new. In existence for “well over 50 years,” their primary application in the
United States has been collecting data for highway engineering and planning. As recently as 2011,
44
most of the roughly 800 U.S. WIM installations were used for that purpose.

Oregon, a leader in WIM enforcement applications, began to experiment with it in the 1980s and
included WIM in its “Greenlight” program at its inception in 1995. By 2007, Oregon had automated its
45
22 busiest weigh stations and enrolled more than 40,000 trucks in the program.

Weighing trucks at highway speeds extends the benefits of electronic screening and bypass from
credentials and safety records to actual weights. Highway-speed sensors can triage the flow of truck
traffic, separating high-confidence compliant vehicles, high-confidence noncompliant vehicles, and
borderline cases. Depending on volumes, at a minimum, trucks highly likely to be in violation can be
diverted to static scales for precise measurement and enforcement actions.

The “Holy Grail” for overload enforcement is “a technology that enables fully automatic and direct WIM
enforcement”—meaning sufficiently accurate to support prosecutions and sharply reduce the need for
triage to static scales. In the spring of 2012, a respected expert commented that such a sensor might
46
reach the market in about 18 months.

Another area of development is virtual weigh stations (VWIM) for deployment on less-heavily traveled
highways. VWIM is a WIM system coupled with cameras, perhaps license plate readers, and a web
47
interface “to monitor the passage of vehicles in real time.”

Several YouTube videos may be interesting:

o For an animation illustrating the WIM concept in action, click here.
o For a driver’s perspective on and experience of a WIM inspection, click here.
o For a law enforcement perspective and WIM technology approaches, click here.

CVISN Deployment Successes

There are numerous examples of successful CVISN deployments. This subsection
describes PrePass, NORPASS, and PierPASS. PrePass and NORPASS are classic CVISN
systems focused on State regulatory programs; PierPASS is a non-governmental initiative to
mitigate congestion in the vicinity of marine terminal gates.

PrePass
PrePass is the continent’s largest ITS CVO consortium, addressing safety, credentials, and
vehicle weight. PrePass includes 301 inspection and weigh station bypass sites in 31 states
and aspires to extend its reach. An interactive map enables website visitors to view PrePass
states and drill down on weigh stations, activity, and benefits in several ways (PrePass). 48

The concept that evolved into HELP PrePass is about 30 years old, dating to 1983. The
Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate (HELP), then the foremost ITS CVO program,

29
culminated in a successful DOT-funded demonstration called the Crescent Project. In 1991,
Crescent included six states and one Canadian province in an arc from the Pacific
Northwest to Texas.

Absent Federal funding at Crescent’s conclusion, HELP participants created a public-private

partnership to fund and support operational deployment of PrePass capabilities. Today
HELP, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation; its governing board is divided equally among State
and industry representatives.

The culmination of HELP, Inc.’s efforts is PrePass—an intelligent transportation

system that electronically verifies safety, credentials, and weight of commercial
vehicles at participating State highway weigh stations, commercial vehicle inspection
facilities, and ports of entry. Installation of the basic PrePass equipment at many
State inspection facilities is funded by HELP, Inc., and provided to states without the
use of public funds. Motor carriers who voluntarily participate fund the system with
monthly service charges. 49

RFID transponders, similar to toll tags, trigger the PrePass bypass process; each
transponder uniquely identifies the truck and ties to databases with information about the
truck, load, and driver. The PrePass website includes a helpful illustration of a typical bypass
scenario and an interactive carrier Benefit Calculator.50

PrePass began operating in 1997, and HELP, Inc., has measured and estimated annual
benefits for states, carriers, and the environment. These are discussed under CVISN
Benefits.

Looking ahead, PrePass offers four new applications:51

1. PrePass Plus rolls together the PrePass CVO tag and the E-ZPass toll collection
tag. The single tag and back-office support simplify carrier accounting and
transponder management.
2. PrePass Gates adds an access control application built on the RFID transponder.
Carriers may equip terminal and parking area gates with electronic readers to
facilitate arrivals, departures, and record-keeping.
3. PrePass Ag is offered by Florida’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services. It brings the concept and processes of PrePass to agricultural interdiction
stations, enabling qualified carriers to avoid agricultural inspection stops.
4. PrePass eLogs offers fleet operators a service that scans driver logs, does a
standard audit, and offers optional daily fuel audits. eLogs flags and tracks risky
drivers and supports enforcement actions with notification letter capabilities. eLogs is
not an official regulatory audit, but the brochure asserts that, “Every customer using
PrePass eLogs that has been audited by the DOT has received a ‘Satisfactory’
rating!”52

30
NORPASS
The North American Preclearance and Safety System (NORPASS) is the continent’s
second-largest ITS CVO consortium. Seven U.S. states and two Canadian provinces are
affiliated with NORPASS (six as members and three as partners). As the coverage map
shows, there is a solid band from Idaho through Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia
to Alaska. The other members are South Dakota, New York, Connecticut, and Quebec.53
(Kentucky and North Carolina have left NORPASS; Kentucky joined PrePass, and North
Carolina established stand-alone NCPass.)

NORPASS functions similarly to PrePass, enabling automated bypasses related to safety,

credentials, and vehicle weight. An RFID transponder is again the unique identifier for a
truck, and it is the key to State, provincial, and other databases. The transponder is
compatible with the toll tags used in the 14 State BESTPASS system and with the PrePass
transponder.

Unlike PrePass, NORPASS truckers pay no user fees—states and provinces cover the
operating costs, which may explain some of the shrinkage in NORPASS member states.
Truckers are required only to register a compatible transponder and maintain updated IRP
registration information at NORPASS.

NORPASS tracks benefits to users but presents the information as a “live” web counter
showing bypasses and savings (USD) since January 2010 (9.3 million bypasses and $80.8
million as of February 7, 2013). The dollar savings reflect a 2007 FMCSA study that
estimated that each bypass saves $8.68. 54

PierPASS
PierPASS is a not-for profit organization created by the Marine Terminal Operators (MTO) in
the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (LA/LB). A multi-purpose, industry-initiated CVO
program, it addresses port operating efficiencies, road and highway congestion, air quality,
and port security concerns. PierPASS began operating in 2007.

LA/LB are the nation’s highest volume intermodal container ports. Metropolitan Los Angeles
is infamous for traffic congestion and air quality issues. In 2011, about 140,000 trucks visited
LA/LB’s marine terminals each week. 55 The visible presence of so many containers amid
heavy traffic was impossible to miss, and it added a public relations component to the
business, as well as civic pressures on the MTOs and the truckers to mitigate the ports’
contributions to congestion. When some people grumbled that LA/LB suffered congestion
costs in order to provide goods and benefits to other parts of the country, it did not help the
industry’s public relations issues.

Motor carriers are no fans of port congestion. The 140,000 weekly truck visits to LA/LB’s
ports were more dray than long haul operators. Drayage carriers usually work within a fifty
mile radius of the port, and drivers are paid on the number of turns (completed trips) to and

31
from the terminals. Heavy congestion and long terminal wait times mean dray drivers and
owners earn less money.

Longshore labor unions limited operating flexibility; prior to PierPASS, most marine terminals
kept close to normal business hours—with limited night or weekend service to receive
loaded or empty containers. MTOs initiated appointment programs to reduce crowding at
terminal gates, but with limited success.

PierPASS was a creative business solution for congestion mitigation, not a technology
innovation. To relieve LA/LB’s port congestion, MTOs opened for some night and weekend
shifts: every international container terminal in LA/LB began operating five off-peak shifts per
week, usually Monday through Thursday nights from 6 p.m. to 3 a.m., and Saturday from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. To encourage truckers and shippers to use the off-peak hours and to cover
costs, PierPASS charges a Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF) for terminal access during peak
hours, 3 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday to Friday. Since mid-summer 2012, the TMF is $61.50 for a
20-foot container and $123 per 40-foot container. 56 Off-peak PierPASS is an improvement,
not a perfect solution. For example, one driver complained online that if he arrived after 6
p.m. Friday, he had to wait 12 hours until the terminal opened. In another example, an MTO
told FRATIS project analysts that trucks queue up in a parking area for several hours in the
afternoon waiting for the 6 PM off-peak hour. Such trip planning and built-in delay makes
overall container economics more difficult to diagnose. 57

PierPASS includes an RFID “TruckTag” to enhance port security and facilitate terminal gate
operations for the terminal and the trucker. A TruckTag, similar to an E-ZPass toll tag, is
attached to a tractor’s rearview mirror. To be eligible, trucks must already be accepted in a
“Truck Check” program run on behalf of LA/LB by eModal. The tag is read at the marine
terminal gate to verify the truck and driver’s security clearance to enter the terminal. The
unique tag ID links to database information about the load, the truck, and the driver. The
truck’s status is checked in the Drayage Truck Registry (DTR), and the driver, identified by
CDL, must be authorized by her or his employer to enter the port facility.58 The TruckTag
enables MTOs to automate the gate check-in process.

Homeland and Cargo Security

This section addresses three topics, two of which are ripples caused by 9/11. The first
subsection looks at the security process and freight data impacts of the terrorist attacks. The
second subsection touches briefly on the large bloom of publicly and privately funded freight-
related technology solutions floated, tested, demonstrated, and applied—with little business
success—in the years following 2001. The final subsection describes several asset tracking,
on-board monitoring, and analytic systems developed by or on behalf of the Departments of
Defense and Energy.

32
Process and Data Impacts of 9/11
The aftermath of the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, brought significant changes to
global supply chain management, especially in supply chain security and in the freight data
exchanged between trading partners and customs agencies. This subsection addresses
ITS-related security and freight data changes.

Traditionally, cargo security concerned theft, pilferage, and smuggling; smuggling included
drugs and other forbidden material, people, “graymarket” goods, and items subject to high
customs duties. Al Qaeda’s conversion of commercial airliners into weapons reshaped the
landscape, as stakeholders saw freight containers in particular as potential weapon delivery
devices. Emphasis increased significantly on knowing what was in international marine and
air containers and cross-border trucks and railcars—that is, demand increased for accurate
cargo documentation. Emphasis also increased significantly on securing containers, trailers,
and railcars with processes and devices that retarded unauthorized entry and significantly
reduced the likelihood of undetected tampering.

Private companies and governments around the world invested in systems to improve
supply chain security. There has been no major supply-chain related terrorist attack, which is
a credit to industry and government security officials, but the threats remain. Given the vast
scope and complexity of global trade, the best that can be done is to reduce the odds and
probabilities of successful terrorist penetration. “The only way to guarantee a completely
secure supply chain is not to ship any freight.”59

After 9/11, in 2002, the United States government led international efforts to secure the
supply chain when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) introduced three programs.
The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), originally a voluntary program,
promotes adoption of security best practices among shippers, carriers, consignees, and their
supply chain partners; CBP reviews corporate security plans and periodically “validates”
(inspects) compliance.

The Container Security Initiative (CSI) “pushed out the borders” with prescreening of U.S.-
bound container cargoes at selected originating ports; CSI also initiated the use of ITS-like
technologies to automate container and cargo screening with x-rays, gamma rays, and other
solutions. Container screening is now conducted both in participating foreign ports and upon
arrival in the United States, in part with scanners provided by DHS to the foreign customs
agencies. In addition, all air cargo entering the United States is scanned.

CBP’s third initiative, the 24-Hour Advance Manifest Rule, directly affected supply chain data
flows. The 24-Hour Rule required electronic delivery to CBP of container cargo manifest and
related information at least 24 hours before a container could be loaded aboard a U.S.-
bound vessel. The delay provided CBP with a window to analyze the information (to look for
suspicious patterns) and deny boarding for containers that merited closer inspection; this
approach meant an entire shipload of containers would not be delayed to offload one
suspect container. (CBP developed its screening system, the classified Automated Targeting

33
System (ATS), in the 1990s and enhanced it significantly after 2001.) In 2009, CBP
augmented the 24-Hour Rule with the more stringent Importer Security Filing, commonly
known as “10+2.” The current rule requires importers to provide 10 essential data elements
about a container, and carriers must provide two items (the vessel stow plan and container
status messages). Importers must deliver their information at least 24 hours before container
loading, and carriers must deliver their information 48 hours after vessel departure for the
United States.

The 24-Hour Rule and 10+2 were near-revolutionary, not because of new data elements but
because of the urgency about deadlines: unless supply chain data were accurate, timely,
and complete, practical penalties could be severe. Third-party logistics providers and others
developed or enhanced 10+2 software packages or services.

Importer Security Filing Data Elements (10+2)

• The "10" data elements that must be submitted 24 hours before a container is loaded on
a U.S.-bound vessel are:

o 1) Manufacturer (or supplier) name and address

o 2) Seller (or owner) name and address
o 3) Buyer (or owner) name and address
o 4) Ship-to name and address
o 5) Container stuffing location
o 6) Consolidation (container stuffer) name and address
o 7) Importer of record number/ foreign trade zone applicant ID number
o 8) Consignee number(s)
o 9) Country of origin
o 10) Harmonized Tariff Schedule number (HTSUS)

• The "+2" data elements are data files that an ocean carrier must transmit to the CBP
within 48 hours of a vessel’s departure. These elements are:

o 1) Vessel Stow Plan to indicate the location of each container on the ocean
vessel
o 2) Container status messages (CSM), which detail information on the movement
and status changes of a container as it travels through certain parts of the supply
chain; these must be submitted to CBP within 24 hours of being received in the
carrier’s own system

Source: ANSI X-12 309 U.S. CBP Importer Security Filing (ISF-10 and ISF-5) specifications for ASF
data elements, May 16, 2011, and Importer Security Filing ISF 10+2 Guide,
[Link].

Security requirements also increased at land borders. Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII)

scanners, such as SAIC’s Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS), screen all trucks

34
entering the United States. Driver identification requirements are tighter. Especially in the
immediate aftermath of 9/11, legendary delays at most border crossings spurred
governments, shippers, carriers, and other stakeholders to identify and implement
processes and technologies to help relieve congestion while improving security. For
example, ITS Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) solutions provided advanced
information about border delay times so that travelers and truckers could adjust their travel
plans. 60 Enhanced cameras and digital license plate readers improved the accuracy and
speed of vehicle processing.

The TSA, after a difficult development and implementation process, launched the biometric
Transportation Worker Identity Card (TWIC) in late 2007. Workers who require unescorted
access to marine facilities and vessels must have a TWIC, including merchant mariners, port
terminal workers, longshoremen, and some truck drivers. TSA and the Coast Guard enforce
the TWIC requirement. Cumulatively through mid-January 2013, 2.4 million applicants
received cards, and 2,500 people received final disqualification letters. 61 The TWIC concept
is a classic Freight ITS enhancement, and it would fit in other freight transportation
environments. However, given the program’s difficult birth, no other freight segments seem
to be rushing to further deployment.

Post 9/11 ITS-Like Technology and Business Initiatives

In addition to cargo security and supply chain data initiatives, 9/11 spawned a host of
government- and privately-sponsored technology initiatives to enhance cargo and freight
transportation security and to improve supply chain visibility and management. There
were far too many examples to address in the limits of this module, especially since
ultimate commercial success and adoption was rare: absent government mandates for
deployment at private expense, the privately-funded business initiatives shriveled and
closed. As an illustration of the volume of initiatives, a 2004 report identified more than
40 secure trade-oriented technology projects underway and in advanced planning. 62

Some technology initiatives focused on pure security enhancements that would have
imposed costs on supply chains; others focused on “have your cake and eat it too”
doubly productive solutions. In general, the second group included security
improvements that helped improve supply chain business practices and visibility
enhancements that would generate better security as a “collateral benefit.”

Operation Safe Commerce (OSC) was the largest single initiative, managed by TSA,
initiated in 2002, and run through several cycles of multiple contracts awards and grants.
The OSC vision was “a program to fund business initiatives designed to enhance
security for container cargo moving internationally. OSC will provide a test bed for new
security techniques that have the potential to increase the security of container
shipments.”

OSC and similar initiatives, including direct research funding from CBP, fostered
demonstrations of “smart box” solutions including Container Security Devices (CSDs)

35
and electronic cargo seals (eSeals). Most of these on-board devices did not achieve
levels of reliability (especially the absence of false positives) that would satisfy carrier
personnel and their supporters.

Smart container and smart trailer technologies hold great potential to deliver benefits to
shippers, carriers, regulators, and other stakeholders. The projects in the aftermath of
9/11 had the right ambitions but were ahead of their time.

Defense Transportation Tracking System, Transportation Tracking and

Communications System, and Intelligent Road/Rail Information Server
Two government agencies developed and operate systems to track sensitive government
shipments. One is the DOD’s Defense Transportation Tracking System (DTTS), and the
other is the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Transportation Tracking and Communications
System (TRANSCOM). DTTS monitors shipments of arms, ammunition, and explosives
(AA&E), and the TRANSCOM System monitors shipments of radioactive waste. 63 Route
adherence monitoring is a special application of asset tracking. “Geo-fencing,” as it is
often called, uses algorithms to analyze and display location data, enabling commercial
dispatchers and (conceivably) law enforcement officials to quickly identify and address
exceptions such as route deviations, restricted area entries, and emerging schedule
failures. Geo-fencing can work with any mobile communications-based tracking of
tractors, trailers, and chassis. A DOT-sponsored hazmat shipment test in 2004 assessed
geo-fencing and concluded that both DOD’s DTTS and DOE’s TRANSCOM system use
it successfully. 64

The Department of the Navy developed DTTS in 1986 following an incident when Navy
torpedoes rolled out of a commercial motor carrier onto Interstate 25 within Denver, CO.
DTTS, later expanded to cover all of DOD’s commercial shipments of AA&E in the
continental United States (CONUS), monitored shipments and initiated emergency response
to any in-transit accident or incident. U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)
manages DTTS today.

IRRIS, the Intelligent Road/Rail Information Server, is another DOD-developed system

that includes asset tracking. It is a Web-based geospatial transportation information
intelligent server begun in 1999 for the Transportation Engineering Agency (TEA), part of
USTRANSCOM’s Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC). TEA
designed IRRIS to support analysis of CONUS infrastructure readiness. IRRIS now provides
worldwide infrastructure and near real-time data for decision makers. IRRIS taps multiple
data sources (including an hourly feed from DTTS) and integrates the data to provide
information in support of a broad range of transportation information requirements.65

IRRIS incorporates geographic information systems (GIS) and location-based services into a
common interface, providing a single point of access for real-time command and control.
IRRIS technology integrates a variety of static and real-time information, including road

36
conditions, construction, incidents, and weather, and displays data through an interactive
mapping interface.

The SDDC and its contractor, GeoDecisions, developed IRRIS as an open system, so it can
incorporate information from a variety of sources. For example, while IRRIS does not directly
receive satellite asset tracking feeds, it accepts them from DTTS. IRRIS also serves other
Federal and State agencies and some private sector users.

IRRIS uses turn-by-turn, address-to-address, or latitude/longitude driving directions with total

drive time, mileage, and maps to guide and monitor the various transportation types and to
create a route on a map that includes barriers (e.g., flooding; bridge and road closures),
enhancing response strategies and execution. GeoDecisions also offers Web services that
provide mapping and vehicle route calculation capabilities, allowing the system to support
varying user needs across multiple industries. The IRRIS website, maintained by its
developer, is a flexible, interactive tool that demonstrates its range of capabilities:
[Link]/[Link].

Freight Facilitation and Electronic Freight Management

This section discusses industry and international standards for data exchange, as well as
DOT projects that used or built upon and then expanded data sharing among private sector
firms to improve freight efficiency.

Electronic Data Interchange

One of the backbones of eCommerce is Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), a standard
method of exchanging files that was developed in the 1980s. 66 Put simply, EDI is the
process of transferring standard business documents between trading partners. These could
be wholesale or retail business entities that supply or sell products. EDI involves using
electronic methods to place an order or receive order-related information, such as ship
notices and invoices. EDI came about so that different trading partners with different
computer systems could exchange and then convert data without having to manually re-key
data. Over the years, EDI became widely adopted throughout the retail, manufacturing, and
transportation industries for exchanging data between entities.

Over time and with advances in computer and communications technologies, EDI has
evolved. Some of the changes have included the introduction of EDI translation software
and Value Added Networks (VAN) and companies that act as bridges between trading
partners to pass transactions. Such EDI providers are responsible for data translation
mapping to ensure that data flows accurately between trading partners. Now, with the
Internet, EDI providers can store the maps of all the possible transaction sets and trading
partners. In addition, file transfer protocol (FTP) over the Internet has become more widely
used and can save users data exchange costs compared with VANs. 67 What used to be a
very expensive proposition for small companies is now much more attainable by taking
advantage of some of today’s technological advancements. Internet-based standards have

37
also been introduced, including eXtensible Mark-Up Language (XML) and Uniform Business
Language (UBL) data standards, but with the same principles of allowing data to be
transferred electronically between unlike systems and operations.

Among the most common EDI transactions for general business and transportation are:

• Transportation Carrier Shipment Status Message (EDI 214)

• Invoice (EDI 810)
• Payment or Order Remittance Advice (EDI 820)
• Purchase Order (EDI 850)
• Advance Shipping Notice (ASN) (EDI 856)

Each of these documents has a standard format developed and maintained by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) known as the Accredited Standards Committee (ASC)
X12. The X12 Committee develops and maintains EDI standards along with XML schemas
that are used in global business processes. In practice, however, each trading partner may
deviate slightly from the standard, making it necessary to have intermediaries to map the
data accurately from one entity to the other. Evolution to the Internet has included EDI-INT, a
set of standards for transferring EDI files through the Internet more securely.

The exchange of EDI data involves three major processes: mapping, translation, and
communications.

• Mapping involves transforming an EDI document into another format (such as XML,
a flat file, a delimited file, etc.) or vice versa. Mapping is essential for proper system
integration at each end of the transaction, and it helps avoid re-keying of data.
• Translation is the process of accepting inbound EDI data, or preparing an outbound
file for transmission. Each trading partner translates the appropriate data into EDI
and then translates the incoming data into its back office systems.
• Communications refers to the transmission of the EDI transaction. This can be done
indirectly (through an external clearinghouse or VAN) or directly (using EDI software,
a Web-based EDI tool, or outsourcing with an EDI service provider).

Electronic Freight Management

To address the freight data quality problem and advance the quality and availability of
connectivity, collaboration, and the creation and use of actionable intelligence, DOT worked
closely with the freight industry to address data-related problems inherent in complex supply
chains; they worked together to develop the Electronic Freight Management (EFM)
Initiative. 68 The EFM Initiative project applied Web technologies that improved data and
message transmissions between supply chain partners. It promoted and evaluated
innovative e-business concepts, enabling process coordination and information sharing for
supply chain freight partners through public-private collaboration.

38
Collaboration took place beginning in the late 1990s in the Intermodal Freight Technology
Working Group (IFTWG), operating as a committee within the Intermodal Association of
North America (IANA). Starting in 2004, the EFM Initiative’s goal was to advance open
source solutions for small- and medium-sized users. The EFM framework, developed and
tested by DOT with Battelle, Booz Allen Hamilton, and SAIC, consisted of non-proprietary
open network architectural specifications using UBL standards, publicly-available Web
services, and a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). EFM focused on automated data
exchange among supply chain partners over the Internet. Many-to-many data relationships
were a key characteristic of EFM; they replaced more costly and incomplete one-to-one
relationships.

The Columbus EFM project in 2007 was a successful, 6-month deployment test of Web
services and automated data exchange in an air cargo supply chain of The Limited Brands
(LB) from Guangdong province in southern China to Columbus, Ohio. Freight for two of the
LB’s business unit supply chains was trucked into Hong Kong, transported via air cargo
charters to Rickenbacker Airport in Columbus, Ohio, and then trucked to LB’s distribution
centers in Columbus. While the test involved air cargo, the emphasis was on data
exchanges and automated status reporting that could be applied to any and all modes as
well as to other shippers and the 3PLs that performed logistics services for them. An
independent evaluation of the Columbus test showed positive results for all supply chain
partners involved, although there was no follow-on implementation of EFM by any of the test
participants. Nevertheless, FHWA thought the results were successful enough to initiate
several EFM pilots around the United States to assess the flexibility of the EFM package,
promote adoption, and measure its benefits.69

Columbus partners said the most important benefits may be for small- to medium-sized
shippers and 3PLs who use fax, email, or telephone for the majority of their communications
with their supply chain partners and who do not want to assume the costs associated with
implementing existing data exchange formats such as EDI; the test partners said conducting
the electronic data exchange via EFM should be less costly compared to EDI. The diagram
below shows the interactions and data flows among EFM supply chain partners:

39
Figure 3. EFM Data Utilization

Source: Electronic Freight Management: Providing Supply Chain Visibility for All, DOT-
FHWA, 2009, p.4.

The EFM Pilots

The EFM implementation case studies that were funded and kicked off in 2009 were
intended to examine the degree to which the EFM applications could improve the
operational efficiency within intermodal supply chains. Each case study documented the
cost-effectiveness, long-term viability, and sustainability of the EFM package, as it was
modified and implemented within the supply chain. Although contractor-led, the case study
teams at SAIC and Battelle worked closely with the private sector entities to promote the
commercial adoption and use of self-supporting EFM-related systems and services.

Each case study documented the environment into which the EFM package was being
deployed, captured the implementation parameters that were put into place to successfully
operate the package, and assessed the benefits in terms of business process cost savings
to assess the return on investment (ROI) to the participating organizations. SAIC conducted
six case studies, and Battelle conducted two case studies. 70

40
 • Kansas City SmartPort – DEMDACO
• Interdom Partners and Pride Logistics
• Interdom Partners and Agmark Logistics
• WorldWide Integrated Supply Chain Solution and Griffin Pipe Products Company
• Express Systems Intermodal, Inc.
• Fellowes (a simulation)
• “ACME,” an alias for a global supplier to the consumer products, electronics, and
energy manufacturing industries (a simulation) conducted through Freightgate
• Carter Transportation LLC and Freightgate

For each case study, SAIC and Battelle worked with the various supply chain partners to
implement the EFM package, which was initially developed by Battelle in Columbus EFM.
The EFM package consists of three documents sets, targeted for specific audiences, as well
as several software component bundles:

• The Adopter set is geared for a logistics person charged with evaluating the
applicability of an EFM package to his or her needs.
• The deployment documentation provides specifics as to the infrastructure on which
the package is deployed.
• The developer documentation details the software architecture of the EFM package
and how one tailors it for one’s specific adoption.71

Benefits observed or calculated in the various case studies are discussed in the Benefits
section below. Perhaps what is most important about two of the case studies is that the EFM
implementation continued to be operated after the test. In the Interdom-Pride Logistics case
study, Pride made EFM its long-term solution. It has changed the way Pride does business
and the way Pride interacts with its customer (Interdom). Thus, the benefits will continue to
accrue.

In the second example, Express Systems Intermodal (ESI) recognized that perhaps the
most important qualitative benefit EFM could provide is a competitive advantage. ESI said
that tools like the mobile app developed as part of its EFM pilot gave them an advantage in
marketing to and securing new customers, as it offered an additional way to interact and
complete transactions “on the fly” and at all hours. The EFM case study provided an
opportunity for ESI to automate the invoice transaction with one of its more manual dray
carriers, Hammer Express. The savings for this automation were so great that ESI intends to
continue its use of the EFM package and pursue adoption of the automated invoicing with its
second (also manual) dray carrier.

Cross-Town Improvement Project

Concerns about severe truck traffic delays around seaports and inland ports, general traffic
congestion on urban highways and arterials, and negative regional effects related to air

41
quality, noise, and safety are pervasive. Freight delays themselves also have a negative
economic impact on the private sector.

These issues have spurred considerable research toward identifying promising

technological solutions to urban freight management. The FHWA Office of Freight
Management and Operations (FHWA-OFM) has sponsored several research projects in this
arena. In 2004, in conjunction with IFTWG, FHWA-OFM initiated the Cross-Town
Improvement Project (C-TIP) in Kansas City. Kansas City is the second largest rail hub by
tonnage in the nation after Chicago; it has significant volumes of cross-town intermodal
handoffs by truck between western and eastern railroads, as well as local deliveries to
industry. 72 This activity requires cross-town dray truck trips between railheads and from
intermodal terminals to shippers around the region. However, due to deficiencies in
information sharing and business practices, the high volume also generates a significant
amount of bobtail (a tractor without any container, chassis, or trailer) and chassis
repositioning moves, which generate little or no revenue for carriers while contributing to
congestion and other issues in the Kansas City region.

An initial C-TIP system was developed by SAIC following preparation of a concept of

operations; the system was deployed in Kansas City for a four-month period from October
2010 through January 2011. C-TIP consisted of several functional components that
included:

• A collaborative dispatch model (allowing freight railroads and dray carriers to easily
identify load matching opportunities)
• An in-cab smart phone application that provided real-time traffic and routing
information to dray truck drivers
• An Open Source Architecture Package (C-TIP OSAP) that provided dray dispatchers
with real-time driver location data and a wireless communications platform for
delivering work orders to drivers, allowing for easy identification of load matching
opportunities and thereby reducing unproductive bobtails

More specifically, the following C-TIP subsystems or applications were developed and
deployed:

Intermodal Exchange (IMEX) – An on-line “exchange” allowing the railroads, facility

operators, and truckers to share information about available loads, delivery
information, traffic, and scheduling

Wireless Drayage Updating (WDU) – A wireless communications system allowing

carriers and their drivers the quick exchange of time-sensitive routing and shipment
scheduling information

Real-Time Traffic Monitoring (RTTM) – Real-time traffic information for carriers to

facilitate travel routing and scheduling decisions

42
 Dynamic Route Guidance (DRG) – Real-time visual routing around congested areas
using inputs from RTTM, a dedicated GIS source, and specially developed
simulation tools

Cambridge Systematics (CS) conducted an independent evaluation in collaboration with

RMI and Occur2Strategies. They designed the evaluation strategy to quantify the time
savings and emissions associated with C-TIP, and also to assess non-quantitative factors
such as software usability and overall viability in a commercial trucking environment.
Additionally, two drayage optimization tests were conducted (one in Kansas City, the other in
Chicago) to assess the potential for truck bobtail move reduction using wireless technologies
within several of the C-TIP components. An intermodal optimization analysis using gate
move data between the CSX and UP railroads in Chicago determined the potential benefits
of C-TIP IMEX in a much larger intermodal market. Table 1 shows the various elements of
C-TIP that were tested or simulated in Kansas City (and in one case, Chicago), along with a
summary of the test results in terms of measured or calculated benefits.

Table 1. Elements of C-TIP Tested in Kansas City and Chicago

Source: Cross-Town Improvement Project Evaluation, Cambridge Systematics for FHWA,

2012.

The initial deployment and benefits assessment of C-TIP technologies in Kansas City did
prove the concept that such applications can provide public and private sector benefits,
including congestion mitigation, emissions reductions, and truck travel time savings. Due to
the scale of the test, the measured benefits were relatively modest. Nevertheless, it is
reasonable to expect that much greater benefits could be achieved in a larger intermodal

43
market like Chicago, where large scale cross-town container moves between rail yards
occur on a daily basis. To assess this scalability, the C-TIP Evaluation implemented a Delphi
assessment of a theoretical Chicago C-TIP deployment.

The results of the Delphi assessment revealed general agreement among intermodal
industry experts that substantial benefits could be achieved. For example, panelists’ expert
consensus was that RTTM and DRG could achieve travel time savings of 5–10 percent per
trip for Chicago cross-town dray movements, and that bobtails could be reduced by more
than 15 percent per day.

In the end, C-TIP was a demonstration and test that was not implemented operationally.
There were several operational constraints to full utilization of C-TIP in Kansas City.
Although Kansas City was chosen for the test because it was a manageable-sized terminal
compared with Chicago, getting enough companies to participate was difficult. The railroad
and dray trucking industries generally do not collaborate or integrate their operations to the
extent that would be required for a common dispatch platform to work. This contributed to
the lack of railroad participation in the program, which necessitated a “what if” simulation
analysis of the IMEX component.

The C-TIP evaluation report noted that the positive results obtained from DRG and RTTM in
Kansas City (along with drayage optimization tests in Kansas City and Chicago) suggest
that future research may be best targeted toward freight information exchange, improving
the truck dispatch operation, and providing real-time information and tools to support truck
routing decisions. The independent evaluator and FHWA believed that the use of C-TIP by
the intermodal industry was more limited than expected, and that a key factor was the
choice to take a government systems engineering approach to developing a system from
the ground up. This approach, while technically sound, took several years to complete, by
which time both the initial C-TIP industry champions and the smart phone and information
technologies available in the marketplace had changed.

The C-TIP experience highlights an opportunity for future DOT tests to be based more on
emerging applications being developed by the private sector. Mindful of the C-TIP
experience, FHWA-OFM and the ITS Joint Program Office’s Dynamic Mobility Applications
program have built on the C-TIP experiences to develop the Freight Advanced Traveler
Information System, as described in the next section.

Current Freight ITS Research and the Freight Advanced Traveler

Information System

Dynamic Mobility Applications

The DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) initiated the
Dynamic Mobility Applications (DMA) Program in 2009 as part of the Mobility program to

44
“expedite the development, testing, commercialization, and deployment of innovative
mobility applications, fully leveraging both new technologies and Federal investment to
transform transportation system management, to maximize the productivity of the system
and enhance the mobility of individuals within the system.”73

In 2011, the DMA Program concluded Phase I, which focused on data definition, technology
application identification, and demonstration planning. The DMA Program began a second
phase and partnered with the research community to further develop high-priority
transformative concepts and to refine data and communications needs. One of these is the
Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS). DOT wishes to advance the
FRATIS bundle from concept formulation (completed in Phase 1 of the DMA program) to
prototype development and small-scale prototype testing (to be completed in Phase 2 of the
DMA program) to test if the FRATIS bundle can be successfully prototyped and work as
envisioned. Three small-scale prototypes were initiated in 2012 in Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort
Worth, and South Florida, and an independent assessment contract was awarded for the
prototypes and to estimate the impact of expanding FRATIS technology deployment to
carriers throughout each of the three regions.

FRATIS
The FRATIS concept seeks innovations to transform freight mobility, including methods to:

• Leverage freight mobility information technologies under development in the private

sector regarding freight traveler information, dynamic routing, and load matching
• Integrate these technologies with public sector ITS technologies and sensor
information available for roadways in major metropolitan regions
• Facilitate accelerated public-private deployment of FRATIS applications

The first FRATIS component is the Freight-Specific Dynamic Travel Planning and
Performance application and will include all of the traveler information, dynamic routing, and
highway system performance monitoring elements identified in the development of user
needs for the project. The FRATIS highway system performance monitoring capability will
provide benefits to public agencies in terms of system management and can also
supplement FHWA's Freight Performance Measures Program. The application will leverage
existing data in the public domain, as well as emerging private sector applications, to provide
benefits to both sectors. 74

The second FRATIS component is the Intermodal Drayage Operations Optimization

application that will combine container load matching and freight information exchange
systems to optimize daily operations planning at motor carrier drayage companies, thereby
minimizing bobtails and wasted miles and spreading out truck arrivals at intermodal
terminals throughout the day. These improvements would lead to corresponding benefits in
terms of air quality and traffic congestion. The FRATIS prototype development efforts involve
coordinated software development and system integration activities, including establishing
connections with existing public (e.g., regional ITS) and private (e.g., terminal queue,

45
appointment times) sector systems. The impact assessment of the three prototypes involves
analysis of the extent to which the small-scale prototypes contribute to the likelihood of
expansion and use of the FRATIS applications by more, if not most, drayage companies in
each region and beyond.

The Optimization Algorithm that will be used as part of FRATIS is under independent testing
and assessment in Memphis. The diagram below shows the proposed integration of the
travel information and optimization components. Development, testing, and assessment of
the three FRATIS prototypes will be completed in early 2014.

Figure 4. The FRATIS Program

Source: USDOT ITS Program Office and Cambridge Systematics.

Commercial Vehicle Safety Research

Working together with the trucking industry, FMCSA conducts research into smart
technologies that support the expanding role of the trucking industry to safely, securely, and
efficiently transport the nation's goods and products. 75 The mission of FMCSA's Research
Division is to reduce the number and severity of CMV-involved crashes and enhance the
safety and efficiency of CMV operations by:

• Conducting systematic studies directed toward fuller scientific discovery, knowledge,

or understanding

46
 • Adopting, testing, and deploying innovative driver, carrier, vehicle, and roadside best
practices and technologies
• Expanding the knowledge and portfolio of deployable technologies and innovations,
which the Research Division will use to help FMCSA reduce crashes, injuries, and
fatalities and use to deliver a program that contributes to a safe and secure
commercial transportation system

Among the many research projects described on the FMCSA website, three in particular
relate to Freight ITS research. Others can be reviewed at the website.

The Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems (IVBSS) initiative seeks to establish a

partnership with the automotive and commercial vehicle industries to accelerate the
introduction of integrated vehicle-based safety systems into the nation's vehicle fleet. This is
the first attempt to fully integrate the individual solutions that address three types of crashes:
rear-end, road departure, and lane-change. The IVBSS will combine existing research
results and state-of-the-art commercial products and product performance for all systems
related to this problem.

The Onboard Monitoring to Improve Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety effort involves
approximately 20 instrumented vehicles and approximately 40 drivers to determine whether
onboard monitoring and feedback (real-time and delayed) can improve commercial motor
vehicle driver performance and safety. If successful, the technology suite will provide driver
performance feedback on a number of critical safety factors, including hours of service, lane
keeping, steering and pedal inputs, safety belt usage, following distance, turn signal use,
and hard braking and hard steering events.

Safety and Security Technology Deployment. Over the past several years, FMCSA has
been involved in efforts to test, evaluate, and encourage the deployment of onboard safety
and security systems, such as collision warning systems with adaptive cruise control,
stability control systems, lane departure warning systems, and vehicle tracking systems.
Through systematic deployment planning for onboard systems, FMCSA continues to be
engaged in industry-government partnerships to conduct studies and relay information to
promote commercial motor vehicle safety and security. FMCSA also continues to add new
technologies to the Technology Product Guides on its website, which provides information
about existing and emerging safety and security system technologies for the motor carrier
industry. The purpose of this information is to assist carriers, drivers, fleet managers, and
other interested individuals in learning more about available safety and security systems. 76

Benefits of ITS Freight Applications

Every section of Module 6 has touched on some benefits of ITS freight applications. This
section pulls together some of the data and themes and adds cautionary words about
“crossing the chasm” that separates a new technology’s potential benefits from the
successful realization of those benefits.77

47
The section focuses on benefits produced and documented by DOT’s ITS and related
programs, particularly since those programs include concerted efforts to measure and report
actual or potential benefits. This section summarizes some of those benefits calculations,
including the EFM projects, C-TIP, CVISN, and the benefits currently being analyzed in the
FRATIS project.

As noted early in the module, private sector deployments of satellite-based asset tracking
systems produced huge economic benefits for leading-edge carriers. Private sector benefits,
often regarded as proprietary information, are not as well documented and certainly less
available than the independently-funded evaluations of projects with Federal participation.
Nevertheless, the section also discusses industry improvements and some quantitative
benefits.

The elements of this section are:

1. Columbus EFM Benefits

2. EFM Case Study Benefits
3. Industry Benefits Comparisons
4. C-TIP Benefits
5. FRATIS Transformative Benefits
6. Private Sector Benefits
7. CVISN Benefits
8. Catalytic and Critical Role of Effective Implementation

Columbus EFM Benefits

In the evaluation of Columbus Electronic Freight Management (CEFM) test data and
interviews with Columbus partners, the evaluators estimated administrative cost savings
related to having better and more complete data sooner, normalizing those savings to $5.94
per air freight shipment unit, nominally at the purchase order level. 78 Because the
manufacturer savings and some of the forwarder benefits reflected Chinese and Hong Kong
labor rates, supply chains wholly within or between developed economies are likely to have
higher dollar savings.

While the quantified savings in Columbus accrued primarily to the individual supply chain
partners, there is a derivative benefit to the shipper or supply chain owner through the long-
term use of visibility technologies: it is in the supply chain owner’s interest for its partners to
become more efficient. For example, more efficient manufacturers and freight forwarders
can provide better service and may be able to reduce their rates to the shipper.

Table 2 shows individual metrics and results from the CEFM evaluation; CEFM’s benefits
came largely in labor savings and data quality improvements.

48
Table 2. Columbus Electronic Freight Management (CEFM) Benefits
Supply Chain Function CEFM Benefits

Productivity:

Shipping Documentation ♦ Reduced stakeholder data entry by 50-75%

Automated visibility data ♦ Improved data accuracy at freight station by 25%

♦ Improved warehouse data availability by 10%

Automated messaging
♦ Better staff planning and forecasting of workload

Service Quality

♦ Improved number of shipments/week processed by

Customs broker by 18%
Automated status data
♦ Reduced time to research priority shipments by 27
minutes/day

Data quality and availability:

Frequency of data updates ♦ Eliminated most re-keying through near real-time data

Data accuracy ♦ Improved data accuracy by 25%

Data timeliness ♦ Improvement in data receipt by 6-72 hours

Source: Derived from Table 1, p. 9, Columbus Electronic Freight Management Evaluation:
Achieving Business Benefits with EFM Technologies, DOT-ITS JPO, March 2009.

EFM Case Study Benefits

Table 3, extracted from DOT’s report on eight EFM case studies, presents the benefit/cost
ratio for each case study. The ratio compares the present value of the measured benefits
and the present value of the total costs over the life of the project. (For a simple explanation
of net present value, look here.) A ratio of 1.0 means the project broke even; project
supporters hope for results well above 1.0.

Six of eight projects demonstrated net benefits with ratios greater than 1.0. In addition, each
project had unmeasured or immeasurable qualitative benefits, which cannot be reflected in a
benefit/cost ratio. This means that the real value of each project to its users was probably
better than the ratio.

49
Table 3. EFM Case Study Benefit/Cost Ratios

Benefit/Cost
Case Study
Ratio

Kansas City SmartPort –

2.49
DEMDACO

WorldWide Integrated Supply

7.33
Chain Solutions

Interdom Partners-Agmark 0.94

Interdom Partners-Pride 6.62

Express Systems Intermodal 0.96

Fellowes (Simulation) 18.39

Carter Transportation 1.36

ACME (Simulation) 127.15

Source: Adapted from the Executive Summary, Electronic Freight Management Case
Studies: A Summary of Results, DOT Report, June 2012.

For the purpose of the ePrimer, let’s look at the first case study; readers interested in more
information can find it here. In Kansas City, DEMDACO (the supply chain owner) was the
principal beneficiary and estimated savings in three areas: reduction in outbound backorders
by 30% because of better incoming inventory receipt information; increase in overseas
shipping container space or cube utilization by nearly 4% through the use of EFM; and
reduction in 10+2 filing fees by 50% with data elements provided by EFM. This analysis
demonstrated substantial cost reductions driven by the improved inbound shipment delivery
date information available from EFM.

Industry Benefits Comparisons

Industry research tells us that, while the web-based solutions are more accessible to small-
and medium-sized companies because of lower start-up costs, fewer of these companies
use the technologies, and most EFM benefits to date have accrued to large companies. An
Aberdeen Research study noted that half of firms reporting quantified benefits were large
firms.79

Based on the case studies and industry research, the authors believe effective
implementation of freight ITS including EFM and visibility technologies yields significant and
lasting quantitative and qualitative benefits to companies of all sizes. Research shows that
benefits grow with familiarity and experience; the Aberdeen survey found that the benefits

50
realized from visibility technologies increase the longer the solution is in place: they noted a
marked increase after two years of a technology deployment—in other words, persistence
pays dividends.

The EFM Initiative also shows the importance of benchmarking “before” or existing condition
data for comparison with operations after implementation. Such before and after data are
integral parts of the FRATIS prototype projects underway in 2013.

Major users of these technologies report better integration with their partners and greater
supply chain visibility. Several users reported benefits of 20% reductions in transportation
costs, 20% reductions in safety stocks, and 8–15% reductions in processing effort. The
findings from individual firms’ reports and from industry surveys conducted by firms such as
Capgemini and Aberdeen show that companies do benefit from implementation and use of
visibility technologies. 80

The CEFM test concluded that integration of supply chain data into a company’s operating
systems is crucial to achieving benefits. In addition, integration among multiple partners
through EFM or other networks can directly impact key supply chain business goals in
productivity, service quality, and shipment integrity. The Capgemini 2008 survey states that it
is important to look at what “major players” are doing that is significantly different from
everyone else. Two of the key traits of major players are integration with their partners and
greater visibility, both benefits of these visibility technologies.

There are numerous web-based networks of commercial software providers that have
hundreds or thousands of potential supply chain partners already interfaced with their
networks. This helps to add new partners to an automated supply chain information
exchange and helps with integration.

C-TIP Benefits
Table 1, Elements of C-TIP Tested in Kansas City and Chicago, demonstrates the benefits of
the C-TIP evaluation. Here is a summary C-TIP benefit types: 81

• In Kansas City, 137 bobtail truck trips were eliminated, even as revenue loads
remained stable.
• The automated dispatch system implemented at a Chicago-based carrier eliminated
most of the manual effort from the dispatch operation and better-identified load
matching opportunities. This helped eliminate 30 bobtails while the number of total
loads grew.
• Out of 95 total trips on five intermodal lanes in Kansas City, the C-TIP component
redirected trucks 30 times on three lanes, with travel-time savings of 5 to 7 minutes
per trip. On average, travel times improved 21 percent.
• Through initial route recommendations at trip outset, RTTM saved drivers on one
Kansas City intermodal lane an average of 6 minutes travel-time per trip,
corresponding to a 19 percent reduction in travel time.

51
 • Based on the traffic improvements identified in the Kansas City test, the evaluators
computed 6 to 10 percent in emissions reductions.

The C-TIP evaluation contractor performed two simulations to demonstrate the likely impact
of C-TIP expansion to more freight traffic. The simulations showed:

• The system could have eliminated 135 bobtail trips in Kansas City over a 4-month
period, avoiding more than 1,000 empty truck-miles and saving 180 gallons of diesel
fuel.
• If all stakeholders fully utilized C-TIP, the bobtail reduction would have reduced
greenhouse gases by about 2.6 million grams and criteria pollutants by almost
19,000 grams.
• Based on gate move data between two railroads in Chicago, C-TIP could have
matched 1,654 loads during a 4-month period, assuming a 3-hour cross-town
delivery window. This would have saved 6,864 gallons of diesel fuel, with
concomitant reductions in greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions.

FRATIS Transformative Benefits

In the 2012 FRATIS Concept of Operations, the consulting team from Cambridge
Systematics derived a set of goals and performance measures based on the results of a
state-of-the-practice scan, Internet research, and the collective experience of the consultant
team. Table 4 shows the performance measures and transformative targets for the FRATIS
bundle of applications; these are the principal measures being used in the 2013 FRATIS
prototype impact assessment.82

Table 4. FRATIS Performance Measures and Transformative Targets

Performance Measures Reduction Targets (%)

Near-term Mid-term Long-term

Number of bobtail trips 10 15 20

Terminal queue time 20 35 50

Travel time 15 17.5 50

Number of freight-involved incidents 30 35 40

Fuel consumption 5 10 15

Level of criteria pollutants 5 10 15

Level of greenhouse gas equivalents 5 10 15

Key: Near-term: next 5 years; Mid-term: 5-10 years out; Long-term: > 10 years
Source: Assessment of Relevant Prior and Ongoing Research and Industry Practices, 2012.

52
For improvements in travel time, reduced fuel consumption, and reduced emissions, the
increasing benefit over time is assumed to result from incremental improvements in
technology and user interfaces within each fleet that adopts FRATIS, regardless of overall
market penetration (i.e., an adopting fleet will continue to improve over time, irrespective of
FRATIS deployment by other fleets).

Bobtail reduction metrics are predicated on full coordination between participating truck
fleets and terminal operators, because without such coordination, reducing unproductive
truck trips becomes much harder. Finally, for reductions in terminal queue times, the
incremental improvements assume improvements in queue detection systems as well as
growing adoption of new methods of information delivery (such as smart phones).

Although it is difficult to quantify, the use of FRATIS data about traffic conditions and its
enhanced dynamic routing capability should allow trucks to make routing decisions that
decrease the likelihood of crashes. Particularly if hazardous cargoes are involved, using up-
to-date and accurate ITS information to find a safer route can have a public benefit as well
as improved safety for the driver and cargo. FRATIS hopes to yield such improvements.

While it is too early to include actual FRATIS results in this module, these benefits are
indicative of the kinds of improvements that have been—and are likely to be—experienced
from implementation of Freight ITS.

Private Sector Benefits

Unlike the public-private tests described above, private sector companies rarely report their
own benefit accomplishments. However, the trade press has some information about
benefits of freight information technologies. 83

• As discussed in the Introduction, the first vehicle tracking system adopted exceeded
all of the carriers’ goals, yielding significant benefits in operating efficiencies,
customer service, driver satisfaction, and truck maintenance management. As a
result of tying the satellite tracking data with customer shipment requests and other
information, expense ratios dropped, empty mile percents plummeted, and driver
turnover shrank. In addition, customers noticed the difference in the quality and
reliability of the carriers’ services.

• Benefits identified from using real-time data and asset tracking were:84

o RFID-enabled Real Time Location Systems (RTLS) linked to Yard

Management Systems (YMS) increased moves per hour from 5 to 12
o 30–50% reduction in switcher labor and switch cabs in yard
o 25–30% reduction in gate processing personnel

53
 Tracking every trailer allowed better inventory management. “If you have real-time
accurate data, shared among shipper, carrier, and consignee, on when a trailer
started loading, when it left the facility, and you know the drive time, then you will
know when it will arrive and can unload quickly and release it quickly.” 85

• Automation of route planning, route accounting, and customer delivery records

helped improve the efficiency of supplier operations and generated benefits such as
fewer administrative errors, improved order management, increased sales, improved
productivity, shorter billing cycles, and fewer returns.

CVISN Benefits
HELP PrePass, the largest public-private CVO partnership, began operating in 1997. HELP,
Inc., continually measures and estimates annual benefits for states, carriers, and the
environment. Table 5 shows the cumulative results and is illustrative of the kinds of benefits
that have occurred or are expected with CVISN. HELP, Inc., categorizes the number of
bypasses as a State benefit, reflected in inspector labor redirected to carriers and loads with
poorer safety or weight indicators. Driving hours, gallons of fuel, and dollars are carrier
benefits, based on saving 5 minutes, 0.4 gallons of fuel, and $5 per pull-in. Metric tons of
carbon emissions are the environmental benefit generated by avoided idling at inspection
sites plus an avoided acceleration cycle upon a truck’s departure. 86

Table 5. Cumulative Benefits from PrePass Inspection Bypasses, 1997-2012

No. of Bypasses 522,471,210
Driving Hours Saved 43,882,008
Dollars Saved $2,626,328,465
Gallons of Fuel Saved 210,633,637
Reduced Emissions* 121,877,158
*Carbon monoxide emission reductions calculated in metric tons
Source: Adapted from the PrePass website, which has the latest information. Provided by:
HELP, Inc. – Provider of PrePass.

Catalytic and Critical Role of Effective Implementation

Great technology does not guarantee great benefits—in fact, it cannot guarantee any
benefits. Absent user management vision and skill, new technology benefits can be wasted.
An unaware, unwilling, or botched deployment means no business benefits. The box below
offers a dramatic real-world example.

A Cautionary Tale for New ITS Technology Benefits

In “Background on Freight ITS,” we describe how truckload carrier adoption of satellite-based fleet
location and communications produced huge benefits for some carriers. Our example was based on
Schneider National in its pioneering success with Qualcomm’s OmniTRACS service. (Company and
product names are used to add vibrancy to the points made; of course, neither DOT nor this report

54
endorses specific products and services).

The adoption of OmniTRACS also illustrated a sobering truth: if you do not effectively implement and
deploy technology, you will not achieve any business benefits. OmniTRACS’ ITS capabilities were
necessary for Schneider to realize those benefits, but those capabilities were not sufficient to achieve
the benefits. First, a user management team must have the vision and awareness to see the potential
for the new capabilities. Second, those managers and their IT and operating teams have to apply
implementation and deployment skills and resources to field the innovation and capture its benefits.

Let’s contrast Schneider’s success with another carrier’s unaware and unproductive deployment of
the same technology. Truckload carriers of munitions and explosives were early adopters of
OmniTRACS. However, unlike Schneider and others, the munitions carriers adopted OmniTRACS
because DOD paid a premium rate of one cent per ton-mile for use of an OmniTRACS-like capability.
DOD paid the premium for better safety and security for ammunition and explosives shipments. (We
discussed the Defense Transportation Tracking System here.)

One major munitions carrier used OmniTRACS for several years before it either recognized or
captured the potential inherent in that ITS system. In 1992, a senior executive of the carrier described
the satellite system to one of the authors as “OK,” as “another box on the dispatcher’s desk,” and as a
success because it generated an extra penny a mile. About five years later, the same executive
commented repeatedly on the significant operating benefits that the carrier realized by integrating the
satellite-sourced data stream with other management systems. In other words, that munitions carrier
87
lost several years’ worth of significant benefits before its leaders “got it.”

Failure to exploit good technology can happen in sponsored freight ITS programs. For
example, despite the quantitative benefits documented in the CEFM program, the
participants did not continue to use the system after the test ended—the issues were
institutional, not technical.

Kansas City EFM with DEMDACO was similar. The test ended and the participants went
back to operating as they had before. The better news, though, was that DEMDACO
planned to implement within two years of test completion. In C-TIP, the Kansas City
participants did not implement despite well-articulated analysis of what could happen if the
implementation were expanded to more traffic and other companies.

As noted above, two of the eight EFM case studies resulted in companies actually changing
their operations and applying the positive results and improvements with more of its
partners. In the other EFM case studies, there was no follow-on implementation.

More generally, another reason to be cautious about realizing tangible benefits from ITS
freight applications is that many segments of the freight industry are characteristically slow to
adopt successful IT system innovations. A long-time, respected observer of the freight
transportation scene believes three major problems “are pervasive in the transportation
industry: sluggish adoption of [new] IT systems, selection of systems that are neither

55
interoperable nor easy to use, and the failure of [transportation] providers…to reengineer
core processes.” 88

One final note of caution: effective implementation is necessary but not sufficient to achieve
sustained business benefits from new technology. Technology requires maintenance and
preservation; new technologies often complicate matters by requiring new approaches to
and systems of preventive and curative maintenance. An effective maintenance culture is
essential.

Our goal in sharing these cautionary remarks is not to discourage innovation but to
encourage attention to institutional and deployment issues for ITS freight—and other—
innovations. In fairness, each ITS project yielded important lessons that have been applied
in future projects. FRATIS, for example, includes a comprehensive analysis of the potential
impact of widespread implementation of FRATIS technologies. In order to facilitate and
encourage implementation, DOT and its contractors are paying special attention to the
deployment issues by emphasizing stakeholder coordination in the regional areas.

Future Directions of ITS Freight Research

Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Research for Heavy Truck

Safety
We believe that Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) research will be
important, continuing themes for CVO safety research. In the latest data, 10% of all fatal
vehicle crashes involved a heavy truck, and effective V2V and V2I deployments promise to
reduce the number and severity of such crashes. For example, the V2V Truck Safety
Program is addressing Forward Collision Warning, Blind Spot/Lane Change Warning,
Intersection Movement Assists, and Electronic Emergency Brake Lights. The V2I program is
addressing Curve Speed Warning and in-cab Low Bridge Clearance Warning. FMCSA’s
Wireless Road Inspection (WRI) research program also is addressing aspects of V2I issues
in truck safety. The Commercial Vehicle Retrofit Safety Device Program is addressing issues
of economic and practical solutions for the significant existing fleets of heavy vehicles. 89

Technical solutions are useless unless they provide data-supported benefits clearly in
excess of user costs. Beyond the economics, solutions must be robust and appropriate to
transportation operating environments; that requires careful consideration of human factor
and institutional considerations. In addition, solutions for new builds and retrofits must be
viable commercial products for manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers, operators,
and maintenance programs. Happily, the DOT programs aim to “accelerate the development
and commercialization of commercial vehicle technologies based on V2V and V2I wireless
communication using DSRC technology.” 90

In general, automotive V2V and V2I programs are more advanced than the heavy truck
sector. This reflects both the economies of scale available via the vastly larger fleets of

56
private cars and the relatively lower complexity of intervening in the operation of a sedan vs.
an 18-wheeler.

A watershed event should occur in 2014: DOT’s NHTSA will consider, for the first time in a
regulatory context, the technical maturity and economic trade-offs of truck V2V and V2I
safety technologies. Possible outcomes range from a mandate to deploy certain solutions in
future truck models to encouraging voluntary implementation of such solutions to calling for
further research. Given the stringent requirements imposed by operating efficacy, possible
unintended consequences, and legitimate liability concerns, the authors believe robust
research will continue for some time. 91

In 2000, the editors of Transport Technology Today asked, “Are Trucks Getting Too Smart?”
They observed that “[m]anufacturers and government agencies have been brainstorming for
years about how to make trucks smarter with innovative technology meant to save lives,
time, and money.” However, these efforts might be counterproductive, “creating a cacophony
of bells and whistles… [that] detracts from…driving the truck.”92 Although the editors did not
have today’s term for such a phenomenon (“distracted driving”), it was the essence of their
concern. DOT’s V2V Truck Safety Program appears to be addressing such concerns with
instrumented pilots using actual commercial drivers.93

As part of its Safety and Security Technology Deployment, in the future, FMCSA plans to
perform expanded testing and evaluations of current and next-generation onboard safety
systems to identify and resolve technology adoption issues, confirm and extrapolate safety
and productivity benefits to the broader industry, and develop focused deployment efforts to
promote expanded adoption of the systems by industry. 94

Future Freight Data Management

Supply Chain Digest (news@[Link]) publishes annual predictions, including some
from supply chain analysts at firms like Gartner and IDC Manufacturing Insights.95

In its 2013 expectations for future development and implementation of logistics practices and
technologies, Gartner analysts say that achieving high levels of supply chain visibility will
continue to be a challenge. Even by 2016, they predict fewer than 20% of companies will
have achieved end-to-end supply chain visibility. This is in part because the number of touch
points in the supply chain is increasingly complex. While some companies have shown
significant return on investment (ROI) from visibility investments, others have trouble making
the business case. Some software vendors claim to provide full end-to-end visibility,
although Gartner believes that is not the case. Certain shippers, such as DOD, need end-to-
end visibility, whereas some retail companies need less. Parcel carriers such as UPS and
FedEx are likely to continue improving their supply chain visibility by making more and more
shipment status data available on their websites. W.W. Grainger expects supply chain
software providers and consultants to work on enhanced connectivity to and collaboration
with suppliers in order to improve performance in the supply chain; the challenge—and
goal—is to achieve transparency, visibility, and collaboration. 96

57
The analysts expect continued growth in making software products available over the Web.
Gartner predicts that by 2016, more than 40% of new logistics application purchases will be
delivered through cloud-based software solutions. In areas like Warehouse Management
Systems (WMS) and Transportation Management Systems (TMS), cloud-based or
Software-as-a-Service (SAAS) software offerings typically have had less functionality than
traditional "on-premise" software; this has been a barrier to adoption for companies with
more complex logistics needs. However, cloud or supply chain management software
vendors “continue to enhance their applications by adding more functionality,” and “they will
soon be viable offerings for even complex and sophisticated logistics organizations.” Gartner
expects cloud solutions to grow but not wholly replace on-premise solutions for at least
several years. “Rather, they will complement and co-exist with traditional enterprise
applications.”

IDC Manufacturing Insights predicts that resiliency will become an even higher priority for
manufacturers. Demand will continue to be volatile, supply chains will be more complex, and
the supply chain owner will need to be responsive and resilient. This puts pressure on data
management systems and analytics for managing global supply chains. "Supply chain
resiliency is about both better managing inputs from the demand side of the supply chain
and being more responsive on the supply side," IDC says.

There will be improvements and research opportunities in analyzing supply chain data.
Hoping to leverage the vast amounts of supply chain-related data, the field of predictive
analytics will grow with more research into optimization for routing and supply chain
operations. Lora Cecere, founder of Supply Chain Insights, reinforced the predictions in the
same issue of Supply Chain Digest: "Satisfaction with transportation and warehouse
management applications is high, while satisfaction with planning software is low. As a
result, there will be a new growth for Best-of-Breed planning solutions."

Dynamic Mobility Applications

As observed in the DMA concept development documents, application bundles may work
cooperatively to increase impact and reduce costs. 97 For example, there may be synergies
linking data regarding traveler intent and possible decisions from IDTO, FRATIS, and
EnableATIS with system management bundles such as R.E.S.C.U.M.E, INFLO, M-ISIG, and
Next-Gen ICM. A team will build a simulation-based regional modeling capability to examine
the potential for cross-bundle coordination and enhanced application impacts. These
analyses can estimate impacts and identify promising system-coordination concepts to the
prototyping efforts.

The Research Data Exchange (RDE) serves as a portal facilitating access to archived and
real-time data feeds related to DMA applications and developments. These capabilities can
help coordinate data for tool development, prototype development, and sharing model
outputs for impacts assessment. For example, RDE should make data from demonstrations
and cross-cutting tests available to tool developers. A tool developer could access test

58
results and better model the latency and reliability of competing communication modes.
Further, RDE could house outputs from the enhanced analytical tool based on field test data.
Other researchers could refine their impact estimates based on simulation outputs.

The prototype RDE went live in May 2012. Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Data Capture and
Management (DCM) program include successive RDE releases with new data sets and
functionality.

Natural Gas Truck Engines and Infrastructure

In the near future, given the increasing supply and reduced price of U.S.-sourced natural
gas, research is likely to facilitate expanded use of natural gas engines in over-the-road
trucks. Research would include environmental impacts of wider transportation use of natural
gas, including the impacts of infrastructure needs for filling stations and maintenance
facilities—and the use of ITS tools to facilitate smooth and effective transition to mixed fleets
and infrastructure.98

On-Board Technologies
Trucks must have Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) beginning in 2015. Among other
data elements, on-board recording devices capture data about engine performance,
including fuel economy. EOBR research likely will address the safety and truck technical
data to meet DOT requirements, improve truck efficiency, and reduce environmental
impacts.

Research will continue on in-cab improvements, especially audio and other systems to
prevent or mitigate distracted driving. Software vendors are creating new mobile applications
to take advantage of smart phones, tablet computers, and other in-cab devices. Likely
applications include facilitating hours-of-service compliance, electronic vehicle inspections,
and commercial navigation focused on truck-friendly routes, such as routes without low
bridges.

Freight Shuttle and Other Advanced Technologies

Texas Transportation Institute developed the Freight Shuttle concept as a low-emission
alternative to move freight and relieve congestion in heavy freight/travel corridors. The
Freight Shuttle would move conventional truck trailers and containers via automated
transporters on dedicated guideways in highway medians or other rights-of-way. Emission-
free, electric-powered guideway systems would accommodate shipments of up to 500 miles.
The guideways and transporter modules are reminiscent of people-movers/monorails at
airports. Animations on the website illustrate the transporters, guideways, and container
loading process.

Private investors formed Freight Shuttle International (FSI) to pursue the research. The
company points out that “there is no new ‘gee whiz’ technology involved” and says that the
privately funded Freight Shuttle is based on a patented application of existing technologies.
The company says it would save more than 25% to move freight compared with

59
conventional trucking. The separate guideway would enhance safety, because passenger
cars and pedestrians would not interact with the system. Transporters would travel quietly at
slightly more than 60 mph with 10 second intervals. 99 More information is available at
[Link].

In early 2013, the cities of El Paso, TX, and Juarez, Mexico, signed a letter of agreement
with FSI to build an approximately 20-mile system between secure terminals on either side
of the border. In this application, the specific goal is to relieve congestion at the border
crossing and allow greater throughput. The developer at FSI sees this particular application
as serving existing, over-the-road trucking customers and logistics companies. Not everyone
agrees that a system on new guideways is the best way to solve what they view as a
process issue. Nevertheless, the proponents hope to be operational by 2017. 100

Another example of private advanced system freight transportation research involves a self-
propelled ocean container, the Autonomous Sustainment Cargo Container, also known as
Sea Truck. The Sea Truck system has a propulsion module and bow module. Both attach to
existing commercial cargo containers. There have been successful demonstrations of on-
board control and steering by the developer, Aeplog Inc. Reportedly, U.S. military has some
interest in Sea Truck. The company website has at least seven demonstration videos (visit
SeaTruck).101

Summary
This module explains the differing yet complementary goals and technology strategies of
private and public sector ITS freight applications. It describes examples of ITS freight
applications and the benefits delivered to stakeholders. Sections highlight industry- and
government-led efforts to test and deploy ITS technologies; they highlight government-
funded projects that assessed technologies and catalyzed freight-related industry
productivity gains. An underlying theme is that the public and private sectors have found
new synergies using similar technologies for different purposes.

Efficient freight transportation of domestic and international shipments of raw materials,

intermediate, and finished goods is vital to the U.S. and world economies. Many freight
transportation firms, focused on efficiency and profitability, have used the latest in
communications and information technologies including GPS, RFID, on-board computers,
mobile communications, and data exchange systems; public sector freight-related initiatives
used overlapping technologies to enhance safety regulation and compliance.

More than 20 years ago, long-haul truckload carriers achieved near-revolutionary

improvements with on-board computers and sensors tied to satellite-based location
determination and communications systems. Public agencies and consortia such as
PrePass and NORPASS began to enhance CVO compliance and facilitation, pairing on-
board RFID transponders with remote databases through weigh and inspection stations.

60
DOT agencies (including FMCSA, FHWA, and the ITS JPO) work together with the trucking
industry to research and assess smart technologies that can help carriers safely, securely,
and efficiently transport the nation's freight. The September 11, 2001, attacks heightened
awareness among transportation professionals about threats that might turn transportation
assets into vectors for attacks. DHS agencies established electronic data requirements as
preconditions for ocean and air freight imports.

DOT’s cooperative industry-based ITS freight-related research is a catalyst: it accelerates

industry’s ability to become more efficient and effective, and it enables public agencies to
improve safety and regulatory compliance while lessening burdens, especially on the safest
and most compliant firms. DOT incentivizes wider ITS technology exploration and use
through programs such as FRATIS, DMA, Smart Roadside, and Virtual Weigh Stations. To
help assure success of these programs, the private and public sectors work together
through industry planning groups and region-based freight planning task forces.

DOT freight ITS initiatives promoted electronic data exchange and sharing among logistics
partners with different systems and objectives. Projects such as EFM, C-TIP, and FRATIS
provide auditable benefits and lessons-learned that can help ITS technology become part of
the culture in freight transportation. Although most tested initiatives ceased operations when
DOT funding ended, participating transportation companies implemented two of the EFM
case studies and changed the way they operate. Overall, the test-driven benefits
calculations show that the continuing freight and intermodal use of ITS technologies
improves freight transportation. Freight-related ITS helps the private firms that transport
cargo, the State and Federal agencies that regulate safety, and the Federal agencies that
ship and manage large amounts of freight.

61
References

1
Federal Highway Administration, “Freight Facts and Figures 2012,” Washington, DC: DOT,
November 2012, FHWA-HOP-13-001.
2
Federal Highway Administration, The Freight Technology Story: Intelligent Freight Technologies and
Their Benefit, Washington, DC: DOT, 2005. This section draws heavily on that material. For
example, see [Link]
3
Adapted from Kim Richeson’s and Valerie Barnes’ Chapter 9, “Commercial Vehicle Operations and
Freight Movement,” p. 9-6. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Intelligent Transportation Primer,
Washington, DC: ITE, 2000.
4
Adapted from Richeson and Barnes, 2000, p. 9-5.
5
Interview of Larry Sur, then-president of Schneider National, by Michael Wolfe, an author of this
module and then a division manager at DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,
1991.
6
Mr. Wolfe’s interview of Ed Kracji, then-manager of Chrysler’s North American repair parts
distribution, 1991. To paraphrase, “I’m not sure how they do it, but it is some kind of satellite
system.”
7
For more information, see the “History of ITS” section in Module 1.
8
See Richeson and Barnes, 2000, p. 9-2.
9
The standard was ISO 10374, “Freight containers—Automatic identification,” later renamed “Freight
containers—RF automatic identification.” This effort did not go far since only one ocean carrier
deployed the RFID tags and readers.
10
Thomson, Keith, “AEI Data Tags and Readers—Tracking Freight Cars,” Trains, May 1, 2006.
11
Taken from the comment of an anonymous reviewer of the first draft of Module 6.
12
CVISN will be mainstreamed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) under
DOT’s next legislative reauthorization. DOT, Transforming Transportation Through Connectivity: ITS
Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014, 2012 Update (FHWA-JPO-12-019), Washington, DC: DOT,
2012, p. 5; and for DSRC, p. 3. For the relevant ISO working group’s introduction to CALM, see
[Link] For working groups under CEN TC 278,
see
[Link]/cen/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommittees/Pages/TCStr
[Link]?param=6259&title=CEN/TC%20278.
13
See “White Paper: Scope of the Smart Roadside Initiative,” by FMCSA and FHWA with support
from RITA, [Link]/research_docs/pdf/26Smart%20Roadside%20White%[Link].
14
Kearney, Tom “Federal Highway Administration’s Truck Parking Initiatives,” presented at the
AASHTO Sub Committee on Highway Transport, July 9, 2013,
15
Hartman, Kate, “Connected Vehicles: The Load Ahead,” Thinking Highways, Mar.-Apr. 2012, p. 55.
“V2I”
16
Between 2003 and 2007, several private industry groups attempted to deploy RFID infrastructures
to cover the inland origination (stuffing) locations and ports of embarkation and debarkation for
maritime containers; these cargo security and tracing applications could not reach a critical mass of
deployed infrastructure.
17
See “For Cab Safety: Train, Monitor,” by Phil Romba, March/April 2013 Equipment & Maintenance
Update, Transport Topics.
18
The Freight Technology Story, 2005, p.12. In the interest of disclosure, the authors of Module 6 also
authored The Freight Technology Story (see the Report Documentation Page, p. 60).
19
The definition is from [Link]/fleet-tracking/what-is-fleet-telematics/. In addition, see
[Link]/fleeteurope/.

62
20
For the FAF, see [Link]/freight/freight_analysis/faf/. For good sources on freight
performance measures, see [Link] In
particular, see TRB’s “Performance Measures for Freight Transportation,” (National Cooperative
Freight Research Program) NCFRP 03 Final Report NCFRP 10, Gordon Proctor and Associates for
TRB, 2011.
21
“Stage Presence: interview with Gough Grub,” DC Velocity, September 2011, p. 29.
22
Freight Data Sharing Guidebook, NCFRP 31, Cambridge Systematics and North River Consulting
Group for TRB, 2012.
23
Adapted from Richeson and Barnes, 2000, pp. 9-5–9-7.
24
Bowersox, Donald J., Patricia J. Daugherty, Cornelia L. Droge, Richard N. Germain, and Dale S.
Rogers, Logistical Excellence (Digital Press, 1992) as used in Richeson and Barnes, 2000, p. 9-7.
25
Adapted from “7 Must-Have Features in a TMS,” DC Velocity, September 2011, p. 43-5.
26
“International Transportation Management Benchmark Study: Getting More From Less,” American
Shipper, November 2012.
27
See further discussion in Inbound Logistics, January 2012.
28
Adapted from the Freight Technology Story, op cit.
29
See DC Velocity, November 2011, p. 62, and the website [Link].
30
GAO-13-201, Defense Logistics: A Completed Comprehensive Strategy is Needed to Guide DOD’s
Intransit Visibility Efforts, February 2013.
31
Adapted from the Freight Technology Story, 2005. Also drawn from trade press publications
including DC Velocity and Inbound Logistics magazines and Transport Topics.
32
See additional information in Inbound Logistics, January and December 2012.
33
See the result of the turn time project in “Taking the Pulse of the Ports–Duration of Truck Visits to
Marine Terminal,” Digital Geographic Research Corporation for PierPASS, Inc., and Ability/Tri-Modal
Transportation Service, March 31, 2011.
34
The private sector uses various ITS technologies both “within the wire” for better terminal
management and “outside the wire” for better fleet management. In-terminal and fleet operation
applications can be stand-alone, complementary, or integrated.
35
Among other sources, see Inbound Logistics, January 2012.
36
For example, a carrier executive might say to a public enforcement manager, “Your records show
my company plays by the rules and those other guys do not, so hassle them and let me go about
my business.”
37
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHUAPL), Commercial Vehicle
Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) System Design Description, NSTD-09-0238, v. 4.0,
June 2009. [Link]/documents/CVISN/architecture/CVISN-System-Design-
Description-June-2009_508.pdf
38
“The ITS subsystems communicate with each other using the communication elements and
architecture interconnect channels shown in the ITS Architecture Interconnect diagram. The
subsystems are shown as boxes, the communications channels are shown as lines, and the
communication elements are shown as ‘sausages.’ …elements unique to [CVO] are shown with
thick borders and those which interface with the CVO-unique elements are shaded.” Ibid, p. 11.
39
Ibid, p. 15.
40
The discussion of Core and Expanded CVISN is adapted from FMCSA’s website; the central page
is [Link]/facts-research/cvisn/
41
[Link]/facts-research/cvisn/[Link]
42
Ibid.
43
Taken in entirety from [Link]/facts-research/cvisn/[Link]

63
44
Saul Wordsworth, “Road Rage,” Traffic Technology International, August/September 2009, p. 20,
and ITS International, “Truck weight enforcement developing in strength,” January/February 2012,
pp. 54-55.
45
Traffic Technology International, “WIM or Lose,” August/September 2007, pp. 40, 43.
46
Nick Bradley, “Preservation Society,” Traffic Technology International, June/July 2012, pp. 21, 23.
47
“WIM or Lose,” 2007, p. 44.
48
[Link]/services/prepass/SiteInformation/Pages/[Link]
49
[Link]/aboutus/Pages/[Link]
50
[Link]/forms/Other%20Forms/Bypass%[Link]
51
[Link]/services/Pages/[Link]
52
[Link]/services/prepasselogs/Documents/PrePass_one_sheets_eLOGS.pdf
53
[Link]
54
[Link]
55
“PierPASS—Working Together to Combat Congestion at the Ports,”
[Link]/watch?v=fEVB2-7_3nM. This is one of a series of PierPASS YouTube videos.
140,000 truck visits per week appears to be data from 2010 and 2011.
56
[Link]/economics/[Link] and PierPASS press release, [Link]
[Link]/Documents/TMF_adjustment_2012_release_6%2012%2012%[Link]. There is
interesting information about TMF at [Link]
questions/
57
Discussion with one of the authors of this Module at on-site meetings at the Port of Long Beach in
November 2012.
58
See [Link] and [Link]
frequently-asked-questions/
59
Michael Wolfe, North River Consulting Group, in answer to a European Customs official after Mr.
Wolfe’s presentation to the European Cargo Security Conference, Brussels, June 2003.
60
For more information see Rajat Rajbhandari, Juan Carlos Villa, Rafael Aldrete, “Prototype System
to Relay Traveler Information and Archived Border-Crossing Related Data,” Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, 2009. Paper presented at January 2010 Transportation Research Board,
and Hitzfelder, Esther, and Juan Villa, US/Mexico Border Wait Time Studies. Presentation to
Greening Transportation workshop, February 2011.
61
TWIC Dashboard, January 2013,
[Link]/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/twic/twic_dashboard_508.pdf.
62
Michael Wolfe, “APEC Secure Trade Project: Preliminary Conceptual Plan,” North River Consulting
Group for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 2004.
63
“USDOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Information Office,” TRANSCOM, undated Fact Sheet,
[Link]/fctshts/[Link]
64
The systems are discussed in more detail in The Freight Technology Story, op cit.
65
The history and inter-relationships between DTTS and IRRIS are discussed in various reports and
websites. See Defense Transportation Tracking System and Intelligent Road/Rail Information
Service Assessment by Logistics Management Institute, October 2004. See also [Link].
66
Adapted from the website [Link]. Jim Savage’s Jim’s eCommerce Connection.
67
For more information about Internet EDI, see the following link: [Link]
68
Adapted from a Supply Chain Management Review article by the Module authors along with Diane
Newton of SAIC: “The Business Benefits of Visibility Technologies,” SCMR, November 2009. The
authors worked on the Columbus EFM evaluation and authored two evaluation reports for FHWA.
See also Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS JPO, "Electronic Freight
Management" web page. Available at: [Link]/efm/[Link]. See also Electronic Freight
Management Case Studies: A Summary of Results, DOT Report, June 2012.

64
69
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS JPO, Columbus Electronic Freight
Management Evaluation Final Report, Washington, DC: June 2008,
[Link]
70
Adapted from Electronic Freight Management Case Studies: A Summary of Results, DOT Report,
June 2012.
71
Available free of charge from the Electronic Freight Management website, administered by Battelle:
[Link]/
72
Adapted from Cross-Town Improvement Project Evaluation, FHWA Report, February 17, 2012, and
various FHWA presentations from 2009–2011.
73
Dynamic Mobility Applications Program Roadmap And Project Descriptions (Phases 1 and 2)
Roadmap Version 4.0, 12/29/2011.
74
DOT, Freight Advanced Traveler Information System Concept of Operations, Final Report v2.1,
April 20, 2012, and various project documents related to the development and assessment of
the FRATIS prototypes. The authors of this Module are part of the impact assessment team for
FRATIS.
75
Taken from descriptions of safety technology research on the FMCSA website at
[Link]/dot/gov
76
All three of these descriptions are taken from the Research Division page of the FMCSA website at
[Link]
77
Thanks to Geoffrey Moore for inventing such a useful phrase, Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and
Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers, New York, HarperCollins, 1991.
78
Columbus EFM Evaluation 2008, Ibid.
79
Aberdeen Research Group, “Beyond Visibility: Driving Supply Chain Responsiveness,” September
2008, and “Supply Chain Visibility Software Benefits,” 2009 report for SAIC and North River
Consulting Group based on Aberdeen’s September 2008 survey.
80
Capgemini, Georgia Southern University, the University of Tennessee, and SAP, The 2008 Supply
Chain Playbook: Game Strategy – 17th Annual Trends and Issues in Logistics and Transportation,
2008.
81
C-TIP Evaluation, Ibid.
82
DOT, Freight Advanced Traveler Information System Assessment of Relevant Prior and Ongoing
Research and Industry Practices, Final Report, June 13, 2012.
83
The two examples here come from DC Velocity, November 2011 and Inbound Logistics, January
2012.
84
See “Taming the Trucks,” DC Velocity, November 2011, pp. 39–41.
85
Aleks Gollu, Chief Technology Officer, Pinc Solutions, DC Velocity, November 2011, p. 41.
86
[Link]/aboutus/Pages/[Link]
87
Interviews by Mr. Wolfe with the Executive Vice President of a major munitions carrier in 1992 and
around 1997.
88
Ted Prince, “Curing Information Technology,” The Journal of Commerce, February 4, 2013, p. 18.
89
“Connected Vehicle Research is at the core of [DOT’s] ITS research program.” Hartman, 2012, pp.
53, 55.
90
Hartman, 2012, p. 55.
91
NHTSA has scheduled a similar review for light vehicle V2V/V2I applications in 2013, a year prior to
considering the heavy truck situation. Hartman, 2012, p. 55.
92
Janet Howells-Tierney, “Are Trucks Getting Too Smart?” Transport Technology Today, November
2000, p. 20.
93
For example, see Hartman, 2012, p. 54.
94
See the Research Division web page at the FMCSA website, [Link]

65
95
“Supply Chain Guru Predictions for 2013” from February 1, 2013 Supply Chain Digest email. The
full text predictions are at [Link]/assets/on_target/[Link]?cid=6696
96
Interview with D.G. McPherson of W.W. Grainger. DC Velocity, November 2011.
97
DMA Program Roadmap, Ibid.
98
Additional information on natural gas trucking can be found in Transport Topics, particularly issues
from December 3 and December 10, 2012.
99
In addition to occasional notes in the trade press (for example, Inbound Logistics, June 2012, p.
128, and Transport Topics, February 11, 2013, p. 3), information and concept videos can be found
at [Link]/
100
See Transport Topics, February 11, 2013, pp. 3, 25.
101
See DC Velocity, October 2012, and the Aeplog website at [Link]

Resources
Aberdeen Research Group, “Beyond Visibility: Driving Supply Chain Responsiveness,” September
2008.

Cross-Town Improvement Project Evaluation, Cambridge Systematics for FHWA, February 17, 2012.

Defense Transportation Tracking System and Intelligent Road/Rail Information Service Assessment,
Logistics Management Institute, October 2004.

Dynamic Mobility Applications Program Roadmap and Project Descriptions (Phases 1 and 2),
Roadmap Version 4.0, December 29, 2011.

Electronic Freight Management Case Studies: A Summary of Results, DOT Report, June 2012.

Electronic Freight Management: Providing Supply Chain Visibility for All, DOT FHWA brochure, 2009,
p. 4.

Freight Advanced Traveler Information System Concept of Operations Final Report, DOT RITA,
August 2012.

Freight Data Sharing Guidebook, NCFRP31, Cambridge Systematics and North River Consulting
Group for TRB, 2012.

Giannopolus, G., “An Overview of ITS for Freight and Logistics in Europe,” March 2010.

Hartman, K., “Connected Vehicles: The Load Ahead.” Thinking Highways, Mar.-Apr. 2012.

Howells-Tierney, J., “Are Trucks Getting Too Smart?” Transport Technology Today, November 2000, p.
20.

“International Transportation Management Benchmark Study: Getting More From Less,” American
Shipper, November 2012.

66
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS JPO, Columbus Electronic Freight
Management Evaluation Final Report, Washington, DC: June 2008,
[Link]

Richeson, K. and V. Barnes, “Commercial Vehicle Operations and Freight Movement,” p. 9-6. Institute
of Transportation Engineers, Intelligent Transportation Primer, Washington, DC: ITE, 2000.

“Taking the Pulse of the Ports—Duration of Truck Visits to Marine Terminal,” Digital Geographic
Research Corporation for PierPASS, Inc. and Ability/Tri-Modal Transportation Service, March 31,
2011.

“The Freight Technology Story: Intelligent Freight Technologies and Their Benefits,” FHWA-HOP-05-
030, June 2005.

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHUAPL), Commercial Vehicle Information
Systems and Networks (CVISN) System Design Description, NSTD-09-0238 v. 4.0, June 2009.
[Link]/documents/CVISN/architecture/CVISN-System-Design-Description-June-
2009_508.pdf

Transforming Transportation Through Connectivity, ITS Strategic Research Plan, Progress Update
2012, DOT RITA, October 2012.

Troup, K., D. Newton, and M. Wolfe, “The Business Benefits of Visibility Technologies,” Supply Chain
Management Review, November 2009.

Additional Resources
Cost of Border Delays to the United States Economy, report prepared by the Ontario Chamber of
Commerce Borders and Trade Development Committee, April 2005.

Customs and Border Protection International Trade Data System Concept of Operations, Public
Version 1.3, September 2010.

Freight Data Sharing Compendium: Final Report to FHWA, Cambridge Systematics, January 2011.

Goodchild, Anne, Steve Globerman, Susan Albrecht, “Service Time Variability at Blaine,
Washington Border Crossing and Impact on Regional Supply Chains,” Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2008.

Guidebook for Integrating Freight into Transportation Planning and Project Selection Processes,
NCHRP 594, 2007.

Hitzfelder, Esther and Juan Villa, US/Mexico Border Wait Time Studies, Presentation to Greening
Transportation workshop, February 2011.

Institutional Arrangements in Freight Transportation System NCFRP Report 2, Prepared by

Cambridge Systematics for the Transportation Research Board, June 2009.

Performance Measures for Freight Transportation, NCFRP 03 Final Report NCFRP 10, Gordon
Proctor and Associates for TRB, 2011.

67
Rajbhandari, Rajat, Juan Carlos Villa, Rafael Aldrete-Sanchez, Expansion of the Border Crossing
Information System, Final Report Project 08-30-15, prepared for USDOT Research Innovation and
Technology Administration, March 15, 2009.

Shallow, Tony, Border Wait-Time Project—GPS and Bluetooth Interval Metrics: A Legacy of Time
Series Data presentation Greening Transportation at the Borders Workshop, February 23, 2011.

68