Overview of the Evaluation of CSA 2010 Operational Model Test Daniel Blower December 5, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Highway / Office of Traffic Safety or Web Request 5% Report County or City Specific Reports.
Advertisements

FMCSA Regulatory Update
Gary Nichols Director of International Sales US Xpress, Inc. September 16, 2010.
Potential SMS Improvements for MCSAC CSA Subcommittee April 2014.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Industry Briefing, August 2010 FMC-CSA Comprehensive Safety Analysis.
Carrier Oversight National Transportation Safety Board Truck and Bus Safety: A Decade of Progress May 10-11, 2011.
October Agenda  CSA Overview  Commercial Enforcement Program  Upcoming HOS Changes  MAP-21 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 2.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
 No new CSA driver regulations  No new CSA vehicle regulations  NO new CSA recordkeeping regulations  Not a system to “throw” 250,000 drivers off.
OPERATING SAFELY AND IN COMPLIANCE James Daulerio CDS CDT Senior Risk Consultant.
CSA and Roadside Inspections Trooper John Sova Motor Carrier Operations Division North Dakota Highway Patrol.
1 Successful Compliance Reviews for Industry - First-hand perspective from a Safety Investigator Keith Kerns Member of CVSA International Safety Team Safety.
Texas Division NTEPS Presentation September 24, 2009.
Transportation Safety Assessments Commodor E. Hall, CDS ISRI Transportation Safety Manager
Motor Carrier Safety The Highway Safety Problem Safety in the Motor Carrier Industry Causes of Accidents Government Solutions Hours of Service Rules Drug.
Driver Briefing | December 2012 FMC-CSA CSA: A Way to Measure and Address Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Driver Briefing December 2012.
National Safety Code in April 22, What is NSC? The National Safety Code (NSC) is a set of safety standards for motor carriers, drivers and vehicles.
1 FSWG Compliance Safety Accountability 1 FMCSA Duluth Superior Transportation Association March 21, 2012 Dan Drexler.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 A New Way To Measure and Address Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety April 2010 Joe Darby Doug Dickinson.
Dial-in: , Pass Code: #; Tech Support: , Webinar ID: Comprehensive Safety Analysis Regulatory Changes,
U.S. Department of Transportation Airport Ground Transportation Association Conference Henderson, Nevada October 8, 2012a Loretta G. Bitner, Chief Commercial.
■ This Training Module is designed to educate Management on FMCSA Compliance Review (CR).
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Industry Briefing, October 2009 Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and Hazardous Materials Regulations : How they apply to You the Roofing Contractor Todd Olney, CDS, ARM.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration CMV Driver Briefing, December 2010 FMC-CSA CSA  Compliance, Safety,
1 Comprehensive Safety Analysis CSA 2010 January 28, 2009.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 Update Arkansas Trucking Association Safety Management Council Don Holman, Tyson Foods, Inc. Corporate Director of Transportation.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration & DOT Safety Regulations Updates.
CSA 2010 Comprehensive Safety Analysis Scheduled Implementation Dates July 2010 through December 2010.
1 Violation to Crash Risk Relationship Dave Madsen, Volpe Center Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) for Compliance, Safety, Accountability.
 Why Change?  What is CSA?  Field Test & National Rollout  Summary.
Indiana Motor Transport Association September 8, 2009 Indianapolis, IN Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
CVEO 3 Larry Pasco Spokane Washington State Patrol Commercial Vehicle Division District Supervisor 1.
Compliance, Safety, Accountability Update to MCSAC October 28, 2014.
Transportation & Logistics Anthony P. Gallo, CFA(410) office, (410) mobile Michael R. Busche(704)
Jeff Davis, C.D.S. Fleet Safety Services, LLC. Anonymous Polling Question #1 1 Does your Company currently have any “deficient” or “monitored” CSA BASIC’s?
U.S. Department of Transportation Airport Ground Transportation Association March 12, 2012 Orlando, Florida Peter Chandler, Team Leader Commercial Passenger.
June 2009 | U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 Overview and Oversize/Overweight.
CSA Driver Training. Who is subject?  Carriers and their drivers are subject if the carrier:  has a U.S. DOT Number; and  operates commercial motor.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Federal CVO Initiatives Overview Plus… Approaches to Enabling.
CSA 2010 Update:. FMCSA’s Challenge: Industry Volume Significantly more carriers than federal/state investigators –FMCSA regulates ~725,000 interstate.
Intro to SMS | March FMC-CSA CSA: Introduction to the Safety Measurement System Version 3.0 March 2013.
What It Means for Great Dane Customers Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
Training & Trends Jay Wommack Peter Charboneau. Current Economic Environment Impact on Transportation/ Trucking Impact on Transportation/ School Bus Do.
CSA 2010 DRIVER INFORMATION 11/27/ WHAT IS CSA 2010? CSA 2010 is a government initiative to make roads safer by contacting motor carriers sooner.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Listening Session #2 12/10/2009 Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
CSA 2010 Overview Presented by Brandon Putz Loss Control & Safety Representative.
Company: Viewing Company Information CSA Phase II Release x, Month Year vx.x FMCSA Portal.
Noncompliance and Correction (OSEP Memo 09-02) June 2012.
FMCSA ANALYSIS DIVISIONData Quality Program August 2005 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration What Programs are Available to the States to Improve.
OSHA Guidelines for Employers to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crashes
FMCSA Update TTA Middle Tennessee ELD and SFD Update
MCSAC| February Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Council February 12, 2014.
SBA Roundtable| February 14, Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Small Business Administration February 2012.
Commercial Truck Collision with Stopped Vehicles on Interstate 88, Naperville, Illinois January 27,
COMPLIANCE SAFETY ACCOUNTABILTY FMCSA ANALYSIS & INFORMATION ONLINE.
The FMCSA Program Effectiveness Study How Effective Are Compliance Reviews?
Office of Research and Information Technology CVSA and FMCSA SSDQ Performance Measures: Crash Timeliness Inspection Timeliness April , 2013 CVSA.
FMCSA Data for Safety Stakeholders| December FMCSA Data for Safety Stakeholders.
CSA 2010 A New Way To Measure and Address Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety.
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) and Drivers Winter 2016.
Auditing your Transportation & Hazmat Shipping Operations
Virginia Ready Mixed Concrete Association Spring Convention
Introduction and Overview
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Commercial Carrier Journal Forum Scottsdale, Arizona December 2012.
CSA 2010 A Compendium for Shippers April 14, 2010.
CSA 2010 Operational Model Test Introduction to the Safety Measurement System Version 2.0 September
CSA 2010 The New Approach.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 Supplemental Slides to discuss Data Preview with Motor Carriers U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 for CMV Drivers July 2010
Presentation transcript:

Overview of the Evaluation of CSA 2010 Operational Model Test Daniel Blower December 5, 2012

Slide 2 Overview of presentation  Paul Green of UMTRI was the lead investigator.  Study evaluated the CSA 2010 pilot test.  Some study questions:  Are the BASICs related to safety?  Do the BASICs do a better job of identifying unsafe carriers than SafeStat?  Does the intervention process in CSA do a better job of improving carrier safety than SafeStat?

Slide 3 CSA 2010 Pilot Test n Four states: Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey n Carriers randomly assigned as Test or Controls (about 35,000 each). n 29 months (February 2008 to June 2009) n Data: Carrier, crash, inspection, and intervention files. n Non-participating carriers (not in test states) used to evaluate BASICs. n The BASICs: Unsafe driving; Fatigued driving; Controlled substances & alcohol; Vehicle Maintenance; Improper loading/cargo securement; Crash indicator.

Slide 4 Most SMS BASICs are related to Carrier Safety, though weak for Driver Fitness and Cargo Loading/Securement

Slide 5 Unsafe Driving Percentile Log Crash Rate Per 100 PUs Association Between Crash Rates and BASIC 1 – Unsafe Driving Nonparticipating Carriers 18-Month Crash Rates

Slide 6 Association Between Crash Rates and BASIC 2 – Fatigued Driving Nonparticipating Carriers 18-Month Crash Rates Log Fatigued Driving Percentile Log Crash Rate Per 100 PUs

Slide 7 Log Crash Rate Per 100 PUs Association Between Crash Rates and BASIC 3 – Driver Fitness Nonparticipating Carriers 18-Month Crash Rates Driver Fitness Percentile

Slide 8 Crash Rate Per 100 PUs Association Between Crash Rates and BASIC 4 – Controlled Substance / Alcohol Nonparticipating Carriers 18-Month Crash Rates Controlled Substance/Alcohol Percentile

Slide 9 Association Between Crash Rates and BASIC 5 – Vehicle Maintenance Nonparticipating Carriers 18-Month Crash Rates Log Vehicle Maintenance Percentile Log Crash Rate Per 100 PUs

Slide 10 Association Between Crash Rates and BASIC 6 – Improper Loading/Cargo Securement Nonparticipating Carriers 18-Month Crash Rates Improper Loading/Cargo Securement Percentile Crash Rate Per 100 PUs

Slide 11 Association Between Crash Rates and the Crash Indicator Nonparticipating Carriers 18-Month Crash Rates Crash Indicator Percentile Crash Rate Per 100 PUs

Slide Month Crash Rates (Feb 2008 – Jul 2009) Nonparticipating Carriers with Recent Activity BASIC Threshold ExceededCarriers Crash Rate per 100 PU Ratio to Not Identified Unsafe Driving9, Fatigued Driving17, Driver Fitness3, Controlled Substance and Alcohol1, Vehicle Maintenance18, Improper Loading/Cargo Securement9, Crash Indicator5, Exceeded Any BASIC44, Exceeded No BASICs428, All Carriers473, Carrier GroupCarriers Crash Rate per 100 PU Ratio to Not Identified SafeStat A/B5, SafeStat C3, SafeStat A/B/C8, SafeStat Not Identified465, All Carriers473,  Crash rates vary by BASIC exceeded.  Crash rates for Unsafe, Fatigued, Alcohol, Veh. Maint. all high.  Crash rates lower for BASICs with weak associations. exceed at least 1 BASIC

Slide 13 Identifying Unsafe Carriers by CSA 2010 and SafeStat Exceeded Any BASIC Threshold SafeStat A/B Total A/B at Least Once Never SafeStat A/B At Least Once1,7769,52111,297 Never12169,64969,770 Total1,89779,17081,067 Test and control carriers categorized by SafeStat and BASIC classifications (over 29 months) 9,521 carriers identified under CSA, but not under SafeStat 121 A/B carriers with no BASICs exceeded.

Slide 14 CSA 2010 Will “Touch” About 3 Times as Many Carriers Currently Get CRs Average number of Test carriers with Recent Activity Total interventions Total carriers with Recent Activity with Interventions Annual number of carriers with Recent Activity with Interventions Annual percentage of carriers touched 22,58610,0955,4192, Estimated carriers nationwide Estimated annual CR Estimated active carriers with CR Annual Percentage of carriers with CR 514,00016,73316, Annual Percentage of Test Group Carriers with Recent Activity Touched by Interventions (Original Four States CO, GA, MO, NJ – 29 Months) Estimated Annual Percentage of Active Carriers Nationwide with Compliance Reviews (2009)

Slide 15 Effect of Intervention on BASICs Scores

Slide 16 Vehicle Maintenance BASIC Percentage of carriers exceeding the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC with 12 months of follow-up after exceeding BASIC threshold Test carriers closed-completed with one intervention Control carriers with no CR during model test

Slide 17 Fatigued Driving BASIC Percentage of carriers exceeding the Fatigued Driving BASIC with 12 months of follow-up after exceeding BASIC threshold Test carriers closed-completed with one intervention Control carriers with no CR during model test No

Slide 18 Unsafe Driving BASIC Percentage of carriers exceeding the Unsafe Driving BASIC with 12 months of follow-up after exceeding BASIC threshold Test carriers closed-completed with one intervention Control carriers with no CR during model test

Slide 19 Effectiveness of Intervention Types on Improving BASICs Scores

Slide 20 Primary Intervention Patterns Initiated in First Year of Phase 2 Intervention type NPercent Mean crash rate 1st intervention 2nd intervention Warning letterNone On-site focusedNone Warning letter On-site focused On-site comprehensiveNone On-site focusedCSP Off-siteCSP Warning letterOff-site On-site comprehensiveNOC Off-siteNone On-site comprehensiveCSP  Top 10 intervention patterns  Represent 81.3% of all patterns  79 total different intervention patterns  First intervention and number of interventions reflect carrier safety No

Slide 21 Effectiveness of the Warning Letter Percentage of carriers exceeding any BASIC threshold The test group received a Warning Letter Only

Slide 22 Effectiveness of the On-site Focused Investigation Percentage of carriers exceeding any BASIC threshold The test group received an On-site Focused Investigation No

Slide 23 Effectiveness of the On-site Comprehensive Investigation Percentage of carriers exceeding any BASIC threshold The test group received an On-site Comprehensive Investigation No

Slide 24 Cost Comparison of CSA 2010 and SafeStat Models No

Slide 25 Cost of Interventions and Compliance Reviews CSA Intervention TypesAvg CostMedian Cooperative Safety Plan (CSP)$95$72 Notice of Violation (NOV)11896 Notice of Claim (NOC) Off-site Investigation On-site Focused Investigation On-site Comprehensive Investigation1, Warning letterNominal Estimated annual test group costs$675,000 Control group Compliance review (CR)$1,438$1,058 Estimated annual control group costs$785,000 Includes Labor Hours, Govt Miles, Vouchers, and Expenses No

Slide 26 Feedback from Field Staff No

Slide 27 Survey of Field Staff n 8 states; 18 surveys sent out/10 returned; half were state employees n Questions covered: n Prioritization of carriers & recommended intervention. n Effectiveness of identifying unsafe carriers in comparison with SafeStat. n Effectiveness of document requests & processing. n Effectiveness of “process breakdown” identification methodology. n Effectiveness of NOVs &CSPs. No

Slide 28 Field Staff Response Positive, Overall The SMS: n “The BASIC measurement system is a tremendous improvement in identifying unsafe motor carrier operations. Investigative officers and roadside inspectors have long understood the need to recognize all roadside performance behaviors in the measurement process. This portion of CSA2010 has been the most well received.” “More comprehensive and fair in measuring safety. Ratings 1 to 10: SafeStat = 5 and the CSA SMS = 9+” n “We are now seeing larger carriers more so than in the past. I contribute the change to the new SMS safety yardstick that is being applied equally across all carriers.” Interventions and “process breakdown” n “[T]he system prioritization seemed to recognize traditional problem carriers in combination with carriers FMCSA has had no prior contact with (but that did have deficiencies).” n “We are in support of all established interventions. Each have their place.” “The recommended types of interventions shown in CSI for the interstate carriers have been spot on.” No

Slide 29 Field Staff Response Positive, Overall (2) n “The Process Breakdown process is a tremendous improvement in identifying unsafe motor carrier operations…However, this new process has focused the investigation toward identifying any and all performance behaviors which may lead to unsafe operations.” n “Much better assessment of the carrier at the time of intervention. It identifies problem areas within the carrier, and an investigator can easily find and focus on areas of deficiencies.” “With the addition of the breakdown into seven different areas it allows a much clearer view of a carrier’s compliance break­ downs and enables the Division to task resources accordingly.” n “This helps in getting at the root cause of why the violations may be happening.” No

Slide 30 Some problems identified: n “Older data (more than one year old) carries too much weight … If they don’t have issues NOW, we’re still wasting time and energy seeing carriers that don’t necessarily need to be seen.” n “Ensure adequate roadside inspection activity in the past 6 to 12 months prior to assignment. There have been several instances where a carrier has not had activity recent enough to cite violations in Capri.” n “We have had very poor results with the CSP—mainly because the consultants who are most often contacted by the carriers are advising carriers not to sign CSPs.” Bottom line: n “It’s better but could still be improved” No

Slide 31 Conclusions  Most (not all) BASICs are related to carrier safety.  CSA identifies substantially more carriers for interventions than SafeStat.  CSA interventions significantly reduce % of carriers exceeding a BASIC threshold compared to control group.  Warning letter was the most common intervention & most intervention cycles required only one intervention.  More intrusive interventions (on-site focused, on-site comprehensive) were used for more severe violations and took longer to show effect.  CSA test group costs overall 14% lower than control group.  Feedback from field is positive: CSA identifies right carriers and interventions are appropriate and generally effective.