.
3. Moses, Leon N. & Ian Savage (1997). A cost-benefit analysis of
United States motor carrier safety programs. Journal of Transport Economics
and Policy, 31(1):51-67.
The second phase of our work evaluated the economic and
social costs and benefits of the safety programs. The SR/CR audit
program annually recommends approximately two thousand motor
carrier firms for enforcement and education actions. As a result of
these remedial actions, targeted firms lower their crash rates
by 43%. The benefits of reduced crashes from this program exceed
both government and carrier firm costs by a ratio of over 4:1.
The same is not true for the roadside inspection program.
Here the benefits exceed the costs under only the most favorable
assumptions regarding the number of crashes avoided. Costs
clearly exceed benefits when more realistic assumptions are
introduced. Most of the costs of this program are borne by motor
carriers whose trucks are delayed by inspections rather than
government.
Included in the costs and benefits of the two safety
programs are estimates of a "deterrence effect" which assumes that
firms improve their safety performance even though they have not
been audited or had their vehicle(s) placed out of service. The
deterrence effect has a credible maximum value of 50% of the direct
effects of the programs, with a more plausible value of 25% of the
direct effects.
The net social benefits from the safety programs would be
even greater if resources were diverted from the roadside
inspection program to the audit program. Unfortunately, the FHWA is
currently adopting the reverse policy. In addition, the
roadside program could be considerably more efficient if the
government conducted shorter inspections, at less predictable
locations that greater focus to the condition of the driver.
However, this policy is only recommended if the penalties for
exceeding permitted hours, the primary violation found in
inspections, are made a good deal more severe.
View the published paper [17 pages, 2072 kb PDF]. You can also view an earlier working paper version that provides more details on the
calculations in the published version, and the supporting documentation
[39 pages, 167 kb PDF].
4. Savage, Ian (1999). Safety Regulation. Global Truck and Commercial Vehicle Technology.
London: World Markets Research Centre's Business Briefing Series, 86-90.
This shorter paper for an industry trade publication summarizes our earlier work and puts it in the wider context
of truck safety. It also updates events to 1999.
View this paper [5 pages, 25 kb PDF].
5. Moses, Leon N. & Ian Savage (1993). Characteristics of motor carriers of hazardous
materials. In Saccomanno, Frank F. and Keith Cassidy (eds.) Transportation of Dangerous
Goods: Assessing the Risks. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo, Institute for Risk
Research.
This paper investigates whether trucking firms that haul hazardous materials differ from firms
who do not haul these goods. It employs a database of 75,000 federal government safety audits
of United States motor carriers. We find that hazardous materials firms are five times larger,
in terms of annual fleet miles, than non-hazardous materials haulers, and are more likely to
be general commodity carriers. Based on Poisson regression analysis, firms that carry
hazardous materials exclusively have a crash rate 11% higher than comparable firms that
do not carry these commodities, and a rate of fatalities and serious injuries that is 22%
higher. Firms that carry hazardous materials in combination with general freight, have a
crash rate that is 18% higher and a fatality and injury rate that is 24% higher.
Among hazardous materials carriers, crash rates decline with firm size. Private carriers
are safer than for-hire carriers. Haulers of gases in packages and liquids in tanks have the
highest crash rates. Carriers of hazardous wastes have the lowest crash rates. Firms
classified as "unsatisfactory" in safety audits by the federal government have a crash
rate 50% worse than other firms, though these crashes do not result in a higher incidence
of fatalities and injuries.
View the the manuscript of the paper presented at a April 1992 conference that preceded the book [17 pages, 53 kb PDF].
6. 1987 Conference on Transportation Deregulation and Safety in Trucking and Aviation.
On June 23, 1987 the Transportation Center of Northwestern University convened a three-day
conference on the implications for safety of two pieces of legislation, the Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978 and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. These Acts had the effect of
reducing the control of the federal government, and of carrier rate associations on the
conditions of competition in the two industries. In particular, the regulatory reforms
embodied in the two Acts allowed: greater freedom of entry into the two industries;
greater freedom of entry into, and of exit from, particular markets; and greater freedom
of individual rate making. The Acts significantly increased the influence of market forces
on the prices charged for air and truck service, and the profitability of individual firms.
Increased rate competition between motor carriers had direct effects on the rates charged
by railroads for the movement of high value goods, and indirect effects on all other tariffs.
The regulatory reform bills were passed because it was felt that increased competition would
lead to more efficient operations and lower rates in the two industries, while not compromising
safety, or seriously compromising quality of service.
The results of the conference were published in a book:
Moses, Leon N. & Ian Savage (editors) (1989). Transportation Safety in an Age of
Deregulation. (New York: Oxford University Press.)
This book should be available from your library or the publisher.
The conclusions of the conference are available in the summary report on the conference which
was included in the proceedings of the conference published by Northwestern
University's Transportation Center in 1988 [26 pages, 115 kb PDF].
We would be pleased to answer any detailed questions that you may
have on our papers, and welcome the opportunity to add what we can
to informed formed public debate of these important issues. Please
send an e-mail including your name and postal service address to request a
package of the complete papers. We would also be interested in knowing your professional
connection with truck safety issues.
Return to Ian Savage's Home Page
