Appendix B – WIM System Technologies
Technology: WIM System
Activity: Statistics and Planning
Program/System Name: Traffic Monitoring
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Collect traffic characteristics information for travel trends, weight trends, pavement monitoring/management, pavement design, emissions models
Provide data for assignment of enforcement resources
Serve dual use for data collection and weight screening |
| Hardware Requirements |
WIM scale - single load cell, piezo, Kistler quartz. Trend toward Kistler quartz for new WIMs
WIM processor (collects scale data for transmission)
Land-line telephone or wireless communication to DOT |
| Software Requirements |
Process/display data to satisfy user needs, e.g., weights and overloads per site by time periods (month, day, time of day)
Record data for every truck passing over WIM, i.e., historically complete (Michigan TWIS)
Determine violations from raw data, recommend optimal hours for enforcement, facilitate estimates of damage from overweight vehicles, flag data anomalies (Indiana/Minnesota WIMCAT)
Download data for load spectra analysis (North Dakota) |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
None |
| Deployed Locations |
Indiana, 50 WIMs
North Dakota, 12 WIMs
Michigan, 40 WIMs
Florida, 1 WIM
Minnesota, 11 WIMs
California, 190 WIMs
Mississippi, 20 WIMs |
| Planned Locations |
"Baselined" WIMs (one year) available for screening operations (Minnesota)
New WIMs, if any, will support enforcement activities (screening, virtual weigh station, weigh station) and data collection |
| Existing Linkages |
Information Not Provided |
| Technology Limitations |
Dial-up communication used in most WIM systems. High speed wireless or DSL required for transmission of real-time data and/or vehicle images |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
No |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
Many have roots in SHRP and LTPP (Federal $), or SPR (State $)
4-lane Kistler quartz WIM = $187,000 (Minnesota) |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Excellent |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
95% accuracy for Kistler quartz
95% accuracy for single load cell
85% accuracy for piezo |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Good
Kistler quartz adjusts to weather and easy to install |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
ASTM E1318-02 (WIM) |
| Other Advantages |
Easy to expand traffic monitoring WIMs into screening WIMs, e.g., no additional equipment, deploy aircard or other wireless communication, user-selected data for viewing
Continuous data collection. Assign enforcement resources based on occurrences of violations, i.e., targeted enforcement (Michigan, North Dakota)
WIM data supplements classification and volume data, used for design, from ATR sites |
| Other Disadvantages |
Difficult to acquire and retain resources for software O&M (Michigan TWIS) |
| Planned Enhancements |
Desire to upgrade all WIMs to virtual weigh stations (Indiana), to weight screening (Minnesota)
Maximize utility of WIMs, i.e., migrate additional sites to weight screening (Michigan, Minnesota) or virtual weigh stations (Indiana)
Incorporate GIS/map based capability for reports (Indiana)
Incorporate WIM data into design processes, including load spectra analysis (North Dakota)
WIM data warehouse to manage data (Minnesota)
Truck data warehouse to make data accessible to more users; GIS, ad hoc reports (California) |
| Lessons Learned |
Deploy WIMs where they can provide good information on what happens on the system and for pavement decisions, and good locations for enforcement (Minnesota)
Planning does not end when data is collected; you need to have a plan for managing and utilizing the data |
Technology: WIM System
Activity: Informed Placement
Program/System Name: Informed Placement
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Use weight data from traffic monitoring WIMs to locate new WIM systems |
| Hardware Requirements |
See "Traffic Monitoring" WIM |
| Software Requirements |
See "Traffic Monitoring" WIM |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
None |
| Deployed Locations |
Data from traffic monitoring WIMs used to locate weight screening WIMs (Michigan) |
| Planned Locations |
Information Not Provided |
| Existing Linkages |
Information Not Provided |
| Technology Limitations |
See "Traffic Monitoring" WIM |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
No |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
See "Traffic Monitoring" WIM |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Excellent |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
See "Traffic Monitoring" WIM |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
See "Traffic Monitoring" WIM |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
ASTM E1318-02 (WIM) |
| Other Advantages |
Optimal data for choosing new locations for screening |
| Other Disadvantages |
Difficult to acquire and retain resources for software O&M (Michigan TWIS) |
| Planned Enhancements |
Information Not Provided |
| Lessons Learned |
Cooperative effort between DOT and State Police determined best locations for all WIMs, both traffic monitoring and screening (Michigan) |
Technology: WIM System
Activity: Preselection
Program/System Name: Mobile Screening
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
View real-time WIM data on laptop in patrol vehicle downstream of WIM. Suspect vehicles identified by visual association with WIM data. Potential axle and/or gross weight violators weighed on portable scale or at nearby weigh station
Serve dual purpose for weight screening and data collection |
| Hardware Requirements |
WIM scale - single load cell, piezo, Kistler quartz. Trend toward Kistler quartz for new sites
WIM processor (collects scale data for transmission)
Wireless connectivity via Wi Fi or other short-range communication, using transmitter at WIM location (transmits WIM data), receiver in patrol car (receives read-only WIM data)
Laptops capable of handling data |
| Software Requirements |
Process WIM data and display data on laptop computer (with visual and sound alerts to identify possible violators). Programmed to display specified vehicle classes |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
One or two vehicles
Two vehicle team at higher traffic volume locations (Michigan) |
| Deployed Locations |
North Dakota, 12 sites; weigh stations waning, WIM-based enforcement up
Michigan, 9 sites
Minnesota, 2 sites; weigh stations waning, WIM-based enforcement up |
| Planned Locations |
Two being readied, monitoring by two vehicle teams; only Kistler quartz for new sites (Michigan)
Interest in screening WIMs to replace weigh stations (California) |
| Existing Linkages |
WIM linked to data processing software |
| Technology Limitations |
High speed communication to support real-time data transfer where truck volumes are moderate to heavy
Patrol vehicle in line of sight of transmitter (within 1/2 to 3/4 mile); however, for one-person team, positioning apt to be "at WIM site" to best identify vehicle |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
No |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
1 lane = $105,000
2 lanes = $125,000
4 lanes = $160,000
Quartz & all screening equipment (North Dakota)
1-lane piezo WIM = $16,000
1-lane quartz WIM = $29,000 (Michigan) |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Excellent |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
95% accuracy for Kistler quartz
95% accuracy for single load cell
85% accuracy for piezo |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Good
Kistler quartz adjusts to weather and easy to install |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
ASTM E1318-02 (WIM) |
| Other Advantages |
Non-intrusive enforcement
Legal trucks not disturbed
Expansion of stop based on weight to include safety inspection, e.g., use ISS-2 to decide to inspect |
| Other Disadvantages |
Within sight distance of WIM cabinet essential to match WIM data and a moving vehicle; limits covert operations
Ability to enforce weights is visual, with impacts of weather, heavy truck volumes
Positioning of patrol vehicles limited by safety concerns
Turn-out areas should be constructed to facilitate weighings and inspections; otherwise, rest areas or wide shoulders are necessary |
| Planned Enhancements |
Deploy camera system to provide vehicle image linked to WIM record |
| Lessons Learned |
Full complement of size and weight enforcement dedicated Troopers is essential to support prescreening operations. Even with camera systems deployed at WIM sites, personnel must be available to weigh trucks
Systems requiring continuous human monitoring are of limited value during staffing shortages
Lack of automated identification of vehicles severely limits efficiency and effectiveness of roadside enforcement
Collaboration between DOT and Highway Patrol in planning and constructing WIM sites for dual purposes is essential for success (North Dakota)
Program buy-in by State Police increased after DOT demonstrated greater accuracy of Kistler quartz vs. piezo (Michigan)
WIM without enforcement "does not make sense" (California) |
Technology: WIM System
Activity: Preselection
Program/System Name: Virtual Weigh Stations
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
View real-time WIM data linked with vehicle photo on laptop in patrol vehicle downstream of WIM. Suspect vehicles identified on laptop screen. Potential axle and/or gross weight violators weighed on portable scale. Same data may be viewed in a fixed facility
View WIM data and images on a computer monitor at a central location. Suspect vehicles identified on monitor. Enforcement units dispatched to intercept and weigh potential axle and/or gross weight violators
Deploy WIM and cameras at highway exit and re-entrance ramps to determine incidence of weigh station bypassing
In addition, deploy license plate reader or USDOT number reader for automatic vehicle identification |
| Hardware Requirements |
WIM scale - single load cell, piezo, Kistler quartz. Trend toward Kistler quartz for new sites
WIM controller (collects scale data and passes to computer, triggers camera) (alternatively, also performs computer functions)
Field grade computer (interface with controller and camera, e.g., merges digital image with WM data)
Wireless cellular network to FTP site or Web server, or to WIM cabinet through Internet. System may be hard-wired (JAXPORT)
Laptops capable of handling data
Camera, which may be covert (e.g., in roadside cabinet) or evident (e.g., on mast arm); number of images varies among systems
Main computer fed by WIM sensor, dimensioning sensor, cameras (vehicle, container, PTZ), i.e., field "capture" systems; feed to central server and interface for display (JAXPORT) |
| Software Requirements |
Match vehicles with weight measurements
Determine violations from raw data, recommend optimal hours for enforcement, facilitate estimates of damage from overweight vehicles, flag data anomalies (Indiana WIMCAT)
Determine total weight, axle weights/ spacings, speed, vehicle photos, sequential ID, etc., i.e., user "query and display" systems (Florida, ROCS at Sneads and JAXPORT)
Optional OCR capability for AVI |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
One vehicle, i.e., images and data monitored by personnel individually in vehicles, who also intercept violators
One person could monitor images and data from multiple sites at a central location and dispatch strategically located enforcement units |
| Deployed Locations |
Indiana, one site waiting for completion of retrofitting; two sites being outfitted. Possibly use all 50 traffic monitoring WIMs for enforcement
Florida, test facility at Sneads, weight information system for truckers at JAXPORT - no enforcement at these sites; Punta Gorda used for enforcement
California, prototype at Cordelia, with LPR |
| Planned Locations |
Eastern Washington probable location for ~2 sites; Kistler quartz for new sites (Washington)
Pilot LPR site(s), no location set - look at heavily traveled routes with no weigh station (Mississippi)
OCR site on non-Interstate route with no weigh station (Kentucky) |
| Existing Linkages |
WIM linked to camera for real-time vehicle images and data processing software
Weights, axles, dimensions, USDOT number, container number, speed, and photos all linked in one record (JAXPORT) |
| Technology Limitations |
High speed communication required to transmit images
|
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
No |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
Retrofit existing site into VWS (no new sensors) = $30,000 (Indiana)
New piezo= $40,000
New 4-lane single load cell = $350,000 (Indiana)
Total system = $250,000 (add $100,000 for mast arm/ pole) (JAXPORT) |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Prevailing belief in VWS as better choice for enforcement than weigh stations (Indiana)
Excellent (Florida) |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
95% accuracy for Kistler quartz
95% accuracy for single load cell
85% accuracy for piezo |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Good
Kistler quartz adjusts to weather and easy to install |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low for non-enforcement sites |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low - medium |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
ASTM E1318-02 (WIM) |
| Other Advantages |
Continuous data collection. Assign enforcement resources based on occurrences of violations. Numerous data analyses, e.g., monthly weight violators, percentage of trucks
Measurable basis for identifying overweight trucks. Especially useful in identifying habitual offenders
Non-intrusive enforcement
Areas of considerable truck volumes
Legal trucks not disturbed
Flexibility to position patrol vehicle |
| Other Disadvantages |
Turn-out areas should be constructed to facilitate weighings and inspections; otherwise, rest areas or wide shoulders are necessary
Using WIMs for enforcement changes character of traffic, i.e., atypical loadings (Mississippi) |
| Planned Enhancements |
Deploy OCR to automatically read USDOT or plate numbers to relieve visual recognition
Monitor virtual weigh stations from fixed weigh stations
Link USDOT and container numbers to databases, e.g., NLETS, PRISM
Deploy RFID and license plate reader at JAXPORT (Florida) |
| Lessons Learned |
Sufficient staffing is key to any enforcement operation. Weigh stations cannot operate 24/7 due to lack of staff. Virtual weigh stations with cameras require staff to weigh vehicles on portable scales
Systems requiring continuous human monitoring are of limited value during staffing shortages
Lack of automated identification of vehicles severely limits efficiency and effectiveness of roadside enforcement
Teamwork is essential, especially between State Police and DOT. Technologies will not be successfully deployed in absence of a team concept
Focus on the technology, not the vendor. Aim is to obtain technology that the State needs |
Technology: WIM System
Activity: Preselection
Program/System Name: Fixed Site-Based Mainline Weight Screening
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Automatically weigh vehicles on mainline highway as they approach weigh/inspection station. Provide real-time weight verification concurrent with safety and credentials verification for bypass eligibility. Potential weight violators signaled in for weighing on static scale |
| Hardware Requirements |
WIM scale - single load cell (Washington)
Control unit with processor and transmitting elements
Hard-wired communication, or wireless communication |
| Software Requirements |
Information Not Provided |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
Weigh station personnel |
| Deployed Locations |
Kentucky, 1 site
California, 34 sites
Washington, 14 sites |
| Planned Locations |
California, new weigh stations at Tecate and Mountain Pass |
| Existing Linkages |
Frequently associated with DSRC electronic screening projects
Mainline WIM linked to camera for real-time vehicle images associated with vehicle data - capture all CMVs on mainline approaching weigh station (Washington) |
| Technology Limitations |
Information Not Provided |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
Information Not Provided |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
Information Not Provided |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Excellent. Activity is commonplace in North America |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
95% accuracy for single load cell |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
ASTM E1318-02 (WIM) |
| Other Advantages |
Capacity enhancement
Reduced congestion within facility |
| Other Disadvantages |
Information Not Provided |
| Planned Enhancements |
Information Not Provided |
| Lessons Learned |
Information Not Provided |
Technology: WIM System
Activity: Preselection
Program/System Name: Ramp Sorting
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Automatically weigh vehicles moving on weigh station ramp. Potential violators signaled for weighing on static scale
At DSRC electronic screening locations, used to sort non-transpondered vehicles |
| Hardware Requirements |
WIM scale
Control unit with processor and transmitting elements
Hard-wired communication, or wireless communication |
| Software Requirements |
Information Not Provided |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
Weigh station personnel |
| Deployed Locations |
Indiana, 5 sites
Kentucky, 8 sites
California, a few sites
Mississippi, 6 sites
Michigan, 7 sites |
| Planned Locations |
Additional sorter WIMs desired to increase throughput at stations |
| Existing Linkages |
Information Not Provided |
| Technology Limitations |
Information Not Provided |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
Information Not Provided |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
Information Not Provided |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Excellent. Activity is commonplace in North America |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Information Not Provided |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
ASTM E1318-02 (WIM) |
| Other Advantages |
Capacity enhancement
Reduced queuing for static scale |
| Other Disadvantages |
Information Not Provided |
| Planned Enhancements |
Information Not Provided |
| Lessons Learned |
Information Not Provided |
Technology: DSRC
Program/System Name: NORPASS
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Automatically identify enrolled vehicles at weigh/inspection stations, allowing automatic screening for safety, credentials, and optionally, weight, compliance, and signal driver with pull-in decision |
| Hardware Requirements |
Transponder mounted in vehicle
Readers mounted at roadside to detect and notify transponder-equipped vehicles and optionally to confirm compliance |
| Software Requirements |
Determine pull-in rates, perform selective enforcement actions on specific carriers, interface with CVIEW (Kentucky ModelMACS)
Gather information from DSRC and WIM; validate credentials, axle weights, bridge weights, random pull-ins; display results and photo images; make final bypass/report decisions (Washington CRISS) |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
Weigh station personnel |
| Deployed Locations |
Kentucky, 12 screening sites
Washington, 11 screening sites |
| Planned Locations |
Washington, Spokane POE |
| Existing Linkages |
Mainline WIM
Mainline WIM linked to camera for real-time vehicle images associated with vehicle data (Washington)
CVIEW or other screening database (credentials, safety, weight violations, etc.) |
| Technology Limitations |
Technically, none for electronic screening; limits imposed by voluntary motor carrier participation |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
Information Not Provided |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
E-screening system = $70,000 - $80,000 (Kentucky) |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Good; improves with increased participation |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Excellent |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Low within State association, ATA, NPTC (Kentucky)
Low within State association (Washington) |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
Yes |
| Other Advantages |
"Reward" for good safety performance
Reduced congestion within facility
Improved traffic flow
Focus inspection resources on trucks most likely to be in violation of regulations
Time and fuel savings for carriers |
| Other Disadvantages |
Voluntary motor carrier participation, limiting benefits to congestion and leveling of playing field |
| Planned Enhancements |
Possibly capture digital images for information on vehicle condition, e.g., flat tire, proper placard |
| Lessons Learned |
Increased time from detection to notification allows for enforcement intervention to override screening decision
Deployment requires support of entire CVISN team, including industry, which helps project move forward |
Technology: DSRC
Program/System Name: PrePass
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Automatically identify enrolled vehicles at weigh/inspection stations, allowing automatic screening for safety, credentials, and optionally, weight, compliance, and signal driver with pull-in decision |
| Hardware Requirements |
Transponder mounted in vehicle
Readers mounted at roadside to detect and notify transponder-equipped vehicles and optionally to confirm compliance |
| Software Requirements |
Site level capability to screen enrolled carriers based on safety, credentials, and random selection |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
Weigh station personnel |
| Deployed Locations |
Florida, 18 screening sites, 6 agricultural screening sites
California, 34 screening sites. 11 sites provide statistics/planning data
Mississippi, 12 screening sites |
| Planned Locations |
California, Tecate and Mountain Pass |
| Existing Linkages |
Mainline WIM |
| Technology Limitations |
Technically, none for electronic screening; limits imposed by voluntary motor carrier participation |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
Information Not Provided |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
AVI equipment and software, installation, maintenance, and repair provided by HELP, Inc. |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Good; improves with increased participation |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Excellent |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Yes |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
Yes |
| Other Advantages |
Resources "saved" on credentials checks and Level 1 inspections
Reduced congestion within facility
Improved traffic flow
Focus inspection resources on trucks most likely to be in violation of regulations
Time and fuel savings for carriers |
| Other Disadvantages |
Voluntary motor carrier participation, limiting benefits to congestion and leveling of playing field |
| Planned Enhancements |
Information Not Provided |
| Lessons Learned |
Information Not Provided |
Technology: Camera/OCR
Program/System Name: USDOT Number Reader
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Automate screening based on USDOT number
(Weigh stations or virtual weigh stations) |
| Hardware Requirements |
Special lighting for USDOT camera
Server to run OCR software and communicate with database host
Personal computer with web browser screen |
| Software Requirements |
Recognition software |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
Monitor/responder, or monitor and responder if different persons
Kentucky, manual data entry at two locations |
| Deployed Locations |
Kentucky, 3 weigh station sites with LPR and USDOT reader, no enforcement use. Manual keying of USDOT numbers at 2 sites
Florida, 1 VWS site, no enforcement use (JAXPORT) |
| Planned Locations |
Automated ramp screening using ramp WIM data, license plate and USDOT numbers, linked to CVIEW, to monitor trucks not routinely passing weigh stations; a prototype, controlled environment, as precursor to OCR deployment at virtual weigh station on secondary road (Kentucky) |
| Existing Linkages |
CVIEW or other screening database (credentials, safety, weight violations, etc.)
Component of ISSES, Kentucky
Component of JAXPORT, Florida |
| Technology Limitations |
Difficult to capture images when speeds vary widely
Timing and lighting adjustments necessary for USDOT readers; with adjustments, accuracy could approach 75% (Kentucky) |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
Information Not Provided |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
ISSES package = $500,000 per site |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Can be used to screen all vehicles |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
57-60% accuracy (Kentucky)
65% accuracy (Florida) |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Evolving |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
No |
| Other Advantages |
Removal of dependence on manual keying |
| Other Disadvantages |
Difficult to read improperly displayed numbers |
| Planned Enhancements |
Link to NLETS, PRISM, etc. (Florida) |
| Lessons Learned |
Most efficient, effective solution to automatically identify vehicles is a simple, low-cost electronic identifier on every truck. OCR may be viewed as interim solution until electronic identifier is implemented
Systems requiring continuous human monitoring are of limited value during staffing shortages
Individual technologies can work well, but integration into one system with one user interface can be major and continuing challenge (Kentucky)
Funding may be available for deployment and evaluation, but can be difficult to find for O&M, especially when budgets become tight (Kentucky) |
Technology: Camera/OCR
Program/System Name: License Plate Reader
| Metric |
Details |
| Functionality |
Automate screening based on license plate
(Weigh stations or virtual weigh stations) |
| Hardware Requirements |
Camera, illuminator, triggering system
Server to run OCR software and communicate with database host
Personal computer with web browser screen |
| Software Requirements |
Recognition software |
| Manpower Requirements (Roadside) |
Monitor/responder, or monitor and responder if different persons |
| Deployed Locations |
Kentucky, 3 weigh station sites with LPR and USDOT reader, no enforcement use
Florida, LPRs on all weigh station ramps, plus 17 agricultural inspection stations
California, prototype at Cordelia VWS |
| Planned Locations |
Automated ramp screening using ramp WIM data, license plate and USDOT numbers, linked to CVIEW, to monitor trucks not routinely passing weigh stations; a prototype, controlled environment, as precursor to OCR deployment at virtual weigh station on secondary road (Kentucky)
Washington, eastern part of state |
| Existing Linkages |
CVIEW or other screening database (credentials, safety, weight violations, criminal justice information, etc.)
Linked to PRISM (Kentucky)
Component of ISSES, Kentucky |
| Technology Limitations |
Dependent on precise triggering and proper illumination |
| Legislative or Regulatory Changes (Yes/No) |
Information Not Provided |
| Cost (Low/Mod/High with $ if available) |
ISSES package = $500,000 per site |
| Activity Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Can be used to screen all vehicles |
| Technology Performance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
80% accuracy for "readable" license plates (Florida) |
| Proven Technology (Yes/ No) |
Evolving |
| Equipment Reliability or Maintenance (Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Industry Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Level of Agency Resistance (Low/Med/High) |
Information Not Provided |
| Standards (Yes/No) |
No |
| Other Advantages |
Removal of dependence on manual keying |
| Other Disadvantages |
Lack of standardized license plates
Same license plate number in different jurisdictions
Bad condition of license plates
License plate found on back of single unit trucks, not readable by front-reading LPR |
| Planned Enhancements |
Information Not Provided |
| Lessons Learned |
Most efficient, effective solution to automatically identify vehicles is a simple, low-cost electronic identifier on every truck. OCR may be viewed as interim solution until electronic identifier is implemented
Systems requiring continuous human monitoring are of limited value during staffing shortages
Funding may be available for deployment and evaluation, but can be difficult to find for O&M, especially when budgets become tight (Kentucky) |
previous | next
|
