This project will be focused on the feasibility of automating OS/OW permit systems in the states, and will include a cost-benefit analysis associated with automating OS/OW permitting within a state as well as between states. It will be conducted jointly by the I-95 Corridor Coalition with Year 14 funding and the FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and Operations. Tasks 1, 2, and 4 will be conducted by the I-95 CC, and Task 3 will be conducted by FHWA. The I-95 Corridor will be the laboratory for this project but the intention is for the resulting information to have applicability throughout the nation. The intention is for all tasks to be conducted by the same contractor to assure continuity of operation within the project. An oversight body (Project Steering Committee) will be selected from the Coalition’s Commercial Vehicle Operations Committee, consisting of three to four champions from states within the corridor. The purpose of the oversight body is to help I-95 CC and FHWA maintain continuity of purpose within the project and to also provide expertise in reviewing the project deliverables before they are approved.

Overall Tasks and Deliverables
The overall project will analyze distinct elements of OS/OW permitting, including:
- Current status of manual OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor;
- Current status of deployment of automated OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor;
- Assess current need/capability to share OS/OW permit data with roadside enforcement personnel;
- Assess current need/capability to share OS/OW permit data across jurisdictions.

Task 1: Assess the current status of deployment of automated OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor (To be conducted by the I-95 CC)
Task 1 Description
This task will involve investigating/researching the current practices in OS/OW permitting among member states. Initial review and analysis of FHWA permitting surveys will be performed to identify particular contacts and previously documented processes. This initial assessment will provide a foundation for further state contact. An interview guide, contact list, and overview map of permitting practices in the corridor will be developed. These tools will be utilized in conducting additional teleconference interviews with representatives of member states’ permitting agencies in completing the documentation of the current environment of OS/OW permitting in the Corridor. Interview guides will provide opportunity to gather background information from participating states including decision points in selecting current practice modes, metrics related to implementation, and future enhancement plans as well as any pertinent information regarding participation in regional permitting compacts related to standard vehicle permit specifications (e.g., weight, height, width, payments).

Task 1 Work Steps
• Review and analyze FHWA state permitting survey tool and output;
• Develop overview of member state permitting practices and state contacts;
• Develop interview/discussion guides;
• Contact representatives of member states, and key groups associated with OS/OW permitting including the Specialized Carrier and Rigging Association (SC&RA), SASHTO and NASTO and conduct documented interviews; and
• Compile interview results and complete overview map of current status of deployment of automated OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor.
Task 1 Deliverables
The deliverables of this task include interview guides for discussion with states; documented discussions and compiled information; and completion of the overview map of automated systems in the Corridor.

Task 2: Develop Best Practices (To be conducted by the I-95 CC)
Task 2 Description
This task will provide documented lessons learned and best practices from agencies that have implemented automated systems including identification of technical and/or institutional issues that have limited implementation. Augmenting the results from Task 1, Best Practices will be developed for selected State implementations to help guide states considering deployment of automated systems. When available, documentation will include state-specific metrics related to deployed automation including compliance statistics and cost/benefit data.

Task 2 Work Steps
• Select a variety of member state deployments of automated permitting to be included in Best Practices;
• Develop appropriate interview/discussion guides for additional state follow-up (on an as-needed basis to augment Task 1 findings);
• Contact state representatives and conduct documented interviews as necessary;
• Compile results and materials into “Corridor Best Practices in Automated Permitting Systems”.
Task 2 Deliverables
The deliverables of this task are the final documents, “Corridor Best Practices in Automated Permitting Systems”, to assist in the detail case studies task and to assist states in decision-making related to implementation of automated permitting systems.
Task 3: Develop Detailed Case Studies (To be conducted by FHWA)
Task 3 Description
Three specific state (or agency systems) in the region will be selected for inclusion in detailed Case Studies. The level of detail to be provided in the Case Studies will include information pertaining to the number of permits issued by category, efforts involved by headquarters staff in issuing permits using automated systems, and efforts by enforcement staff in reviewing permits using automated systems. A baseline cost estimate for each Case Study will provide an important metric to understanding the scale and magnitude of varying permitting models and allow comparison reference for other states and agencies as well as Federal partners.

Task 3 Work Steps
• Three Case Study subjects from the “best practice” states will be selected for detailed analysis and documentation;
• Conduct an analysis of the cost benefits associated with automating the permitting process within the state using the metrics from the “best practices” task;
• Conduct a feasibility analysis of sharing permit data with roadside personnel using the metrics from the “best practice” task; and
• Compile detailed “OS/OW Permitting - Case Study Analysis Report”.
Task 3 Deliverables
The deliverable for this task is the final document, “OS/OW Permitting - Case Study Analysis Report” to assist states in decision-making related to implementation of automated permitting systems.
Task 4: Assess current need/capability to share OS/OW permit data with roadside enforcement personnel and across jurisdictions and determine coordination scenarios. (To be conducted by the I-95 CC)

Task 4 Description
Augmenting the results from Task 1, an assessment will be developed for states’ expressed interest and need to share permitting data to the roadside as well as across jurisdictions. Information gathered regarding decision points and future plans of automation will be applied against the overview map and analyzed for potential coordination scenarios among states. Additionally, state progress in other Federal programs will be considered and applied to scenarios. Recommendations for coordination among states and the Coalition’s potential role in facilitating data exchange will be provided.

Task 4 Work Steps
• Assess member states’ current practice and/or interest in sharing permit data with the roadside and/or across jurisdictions;
• Develop interview/discussion guides for additional state follow-up (on an as-needed basis to augment Task 1 findings);
• Contact state representatives and conduct documented interviews as necessary; and
• Compile results and materials into data sharing report and recommendations for coordination.
Task 4 Deliverables
The deliverable of this task is the final documentation of states’ interest in sharing permit data to the roadside as well as across jurisdictions. Findings and coordination recommendations will be considered in concert with the overview of the corridor region’s automated permitting map and the need to share OS/OW permitting data based on the states’ participation in regional permitting agreements and the structure of the regional permitting agreements (i.e., if states issue regional permits on behalf of each other or if states only issue permits for themselves). Findings documentation will include identification of potential Corridor Coalition opportunities to help facilitate viable scenarios.


Evaluation/performance measurement

To ensure the project goals are being achieved in a timely manner, the Project Manager will provide updates to the Coalition and its members (as deemed appropriate by leadership) through progress reporting related to invoicing; Quarterly Reporting through UMD; and through Subcommittee updates via conference call, web cast, or face-to-face meeting. The success of the overall project will be measured on the value of the information provided to the Coalition and members regarding clear understanding of the current condition of OS/OW permitting practices in the Corridor; concise findings related to Best Practices in automation of permitting, and concise findings related to Best Practices in sharing permit data to the roadside.

Procurement Agency: Maryland State Highway Administration
Project Contact:  Marygrace Parker
Freight, Mobility, Safety & Security Coordinator
I-95 Corridor Coalition
Phone: (518) 852-4083
E-mail: i95mgp@ttlc.net

To document the current state of practice and best practices with respect to: deployment of automated OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor, status of member states’ participation in regional permitting compacts/agreements, the need/capability to share OS/OW permit data with roadside enforcement personnel, and the need/capability to share OS/OW permit data across jurisdictions. To provide information that may assist states who have not deployed automated permitting systems in automating and in developing capabilities to share os/ow permit information with roadside personnel and electronic screening systems.

View Word file of Scope of Project.

For the I-95 Corridor Coalition (I-95 CC) and FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and Operations (HOFM) this collaborative effort documented the current environment of over dimensional permitting in the Corridor region to better understand the safety and efficiency implications of permitting and automation.

The overall project analyzed the following distinct elements of OS/OW permitting:

• Current status of manual OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor;
• Current status of deployment of automated OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor; 
• Assess current need/capability to share OS/OW permit data with roadside enforcement personnel; and
• Assess current need/capability to share OS/OW permit data across jurisdictions.

The project team identified the primary functional areas of permitting and established performance measures related to each functional area to allow agencies evaluation segments for their overall process to prioritize automation initiatives incrementally. Twenty agencies were contacted and fourteen detailed telephone interviews were conducted. Additionally, the task supported investigation of over-dimensional permitting processes and systems through detailed Case Studies of three states and five agencies including New York State (NYSDOT, NYSTA, NYSBA), Florida, and Tennessee. These states’ permitting practices compare and contrast such metrics as permit volume, geographic size, and systems implementation costs. In addition, the states have operational differences including the number of involved agencies, variations in automation, on-site staffing solutions, and plans and interest in sharing permit data with roadside personnel.

In addition to the best practices identified through the project interview process notable key findings have been categorized in the areas of automation, institutional issues, operational environment and performance metrics, and data exchange.

Automation:

1. No agency reports regrets regarding decisions to automate at any level;
2. Majority of agencies revealed even incremental steps between fully manual and fully automated processes are beneficial;
3. Cost/benefits of automation recognized and support investment decisions; and
4. Fully automating an existing process may not translate into better performance without analysis of process/process reengineering.

Institutional Issues:

1. Systems operators and decision-makers may have communication disconnects regarding agency needs and priorities; 
2. Importance of involving all parties in the process of analyzing existing practice prior to implementation of automation;
3. Importance in finding collaboration points between agencies in a state; and 
4. Promoting dialogue among stakeholders (staff, other agencies, motor carriers) is beneficial.

Operational Environment and Performance Metrics:

1.  Metrics are critical to gauge operations and can often reveal more than output and data comparison points; 
2. Analysis of metrics can diminish perception of good performance and reveal exposures of a less than optimum process with potential to fail to perform (e.g., turnaround time is achieved but cannot sustain any notable increase in volume);
3. A bad business model can negatively impact an agency directly in staff turnover, customer service deficiencies, unrecognized volume revenue;
4. Optimizing system performance is the ultimate objective and does not always translate into fully automating the existing process;
5. Automation provides solution to increasing system “up-time” beyond the nine-to-five operations; 
6. Increased up-times result in increased volume; and
7. Consideration of economic implications (gas prices and potential need to reduce number of trips) on planning and projections is inevitable.

Data Exchange:

1. Agencies are not reluctant to share permit data with enforcement regardless of current data exchange status;
2. Identification of enforcement data requirements and delivery options to the roadside is critical;
3. States’ decisions/plans regarding deployment of CVIEW/CVIEW equivalent for SAFER data exchange impacts timeline of data to roadside; and
4. Short-term interim data exchange solutions may be of interest to states.

Findings of the combined I-95 Corridor Coalition and FHWA OS/OW Permitting – Best Practices and Case Studies project were presented to the CVO Committee and interested stakeholders as part of the August 2008 CVO Annual Meeting and webcast. The presentation included project milestones in establishing a baseline of permitting practices among the lead state agencies and identification of best practices related to automated permitting within segments of the permitting process exportable to other agencies. The project also sought to establish cost/benefit experiences of agencies who migrated from manual to automated permitting systems. Recognizing that “all or nothing” solutions are often not realistic for implementation due to factors such as cost, procurement processes, and data sharing issues the final report was organized to highlight discrete segments in the permitting process. Permitting processes were broken down into four primary segments – application access and submission; processing and approval; credential issuance/delivery; and enforcement/permit verification – and anecdotal findings presented in areas of customer partnership, responsiveness, staff leverage, and seamless compliance. The project overall findings supported automation being a positive action for the oversight agencies – reducing staffing costs, creating efficiencies and improved customer service, and through the ease of electronic filing increased filings by specialized haulers. The Committee endorsed the Coalition and FHWA sharing and/or promoting the findings of the report with agencies within and outside the Coalition through groups involved in monitoring permitting and/or truck size and weight issues.

Next Steps which may be considered by I-95 CC and FHWA, independently or collaboratively, include (but are not limited to):

• Share the findings of Best Practices and Case Studies with members and other organizations;
• Promote dialogue(s) and actively convene focused “next steps discussions” to identify further initiatives (potentially include WA State Freight Resiliency initiative);
• Invite the agencies to showcase their systems and provide a venue to do so;
• Assist agencies in determining beneficial incremental automation solutions;
• Coordinate activity with other venues such as AASHTO Subcommittee on Highway Transport; TRB; etc., to elevate institutional and technical issues to the forefront;
• Assist stakeholders in pursuit of solutions/coordination regarding permitting practice topics such as:

1. Improved routing and internal database development and maintenance;
2. Automated routing and road inventory systems;
3. Route changes in real-time and delivery of information to commercial vehicle drivers;
4. Traveler information augmentation to include (roads plowed/cleared, construction updates);
5. Sharing insurance bond data for verification at roadside; and
6. State-specific escort practices and policy.

Copies of the final report were also made available on cd at the Coalition booth during the 2008 World Congress in New York City, NY.

Task 1: Assess the current status of deployment of automated OS/OW systems in the I-95 Corridor - $30,000 03/07 – 04/07

Task 2: Develop “Corridor Best Practices in Automated Permitting Systems” - $15,000 04/07 – 07/07

Task 3: Develop “OS/OW Permitting – Case Study Analysis Report” - * $30,000 05/07 – 08/07

Task4: Assess current need/capability to share OS/OW permit data with roadside enforcement personnel and across jurisdictions and determine coordination scenarios. - $25,000 06/07 – 08/07

* Task 3 (Case Studies) to be funded by FHWA Freight Office
Contact: Mike Onder
Remainder of project funding by 1-95 CC CVO Committee Year 14 funding