|
|
|
Value/Why Would
Stakeholder Shift to Using a Core?
|
|
Potential of
significantly increasing safety of truck operations, thus eliminating losses
for logistics companies.
|
|
Safety applications
could allow for increase of vehicle size without trading off safety.
|
|
Electronic
monitoring and inspections reduce unproductive stop times while enabling
enforcement agencies to reduce staff or refocus staff on other areas.
|
|
|
|
Alternatives to
Using a Core System
|
|
Blind spot monitors
already in use on modern freight trucks.
|
|
Warning systems such
as bridge height warnings using laser measurement systems are also deployed
in small numbers at vital infrastructure sites. H expensive and therefore not in widespread
use.
|
|
Moreover, they are
not that effective due to the ambiguity of which vehicle triggered the
warning lights. Drivers often assume
it is another vehicle. The in-vehicle
warnings enabled by connected vehicle applications make it clear to the
driver that the warning is for them.
|
|
|
|
Static weigh
stations require vehicles to pull over for weighing and inspection. Only a fraction of vehicles are
checked. Downstream stations would not
know if a particular vehicle has been screened and certified at an upstream
station so it may be unnecessarily rechecked.
|
|
Weigh in Motion
stations exist at a number of places to screen for overweight vehicles
without requiring trucks to pull over.
They are expensive and require annual or more frequent recalibration
to maintain their modest accuracy.
|
|
|
|
The connected
vehicle environment creates a single platform for trucks to communicate with
the regulatory infrastructure, the traffic control system, their fleet
managers, intermodal and freight facilities and others in a way that would be
prohibitively expensive if done by application specific systems. The new capabilities stem from the
efficiency and security of the communications provided by the Core System.
|
|
|