Costs and Benefits of Texas Motor Vehicle Inspections for passenger - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Costs and Benefits of Texas Motor Vehicle Inspections for passenger vehicles and non-CMV trucks

Workshop / WebEx University of Texas at Austin – PRC Commons Learning Center June 26, 2018 9AM – 3PM

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

WELCOME !

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

9AM – 11AM 1. Welcome and brief introductions Mike Murphy (CTR) 2. Plenary Session Presentations a. Overview – Study Scope and Objectives Mike Murphy (CTR)

• b. ‘Big Data’ Analysis – preliminary results

Nan Jiang (CTR) c. MVSIP costs Darren Hazlett (CTR)

• d. Incorporating recalls in MVSIP

Michael St. Denis (Revecorp)

• e. Online surveys – preliminary results

Mike Murphy (CTR) Buffet Lunch 11AM – 12PM 12PM – 2PM 3. Breakout Sessions

• a. Bevo Meeting Room

– Workshop attendees

• b. Stadium Meeting Room

– Workshop attendees

• c. Balcones Meeting Room

– WebEx 2PM – 3PM 4. Reconvene – Balcones Room Breakout Session Key Takeaways 5. Adjourn

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Study and Workshop Objectives Mike Murphy, Ph.D., P.E.

Deputy Director – Center for Transportation Research

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Study Scope and Objectives

Study Scope

• 1. Affects passenger vehicles and non CMV trucks
• 2. Does not affect emissions testing in non‐attainment

counties Study Objectives

• 1. Document Safety Impacts if Motor Vehicle Safety

Inspections were eliminated for (1).

• 2. Document the costs and impacts to state budget(s) if

TMVSI were eliminated for (1).

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Breakout Session Number Breakout Meeting Room Name Title Company affiliation 1 BEVO Nan Jiang Research Associate UT‐Center for Transportation Research 1 BEVO Stefanos Politis Graduate Research Assistant UT‐Center for Transportation Research 1 BEVO Pablo Luna DPS Program Manager Texas Department of Public Safety 1 BEVO Paula Kennedy Program coordinator Texas Department of Public Safety 1 BEVO Ember Brillhart Honda, State Govenrment Relations Manager Honda North America (HNA) 1 BEVO Charles Ray Texas State Manager DEKRA North America 1 BEVO Stacy Dutton Association Manager TAIPA 2 BEVO Zhe Han Researcher UT‐Center for Transportation Research 2 BEVO Robert Harrison Senior Research Scientist UT‐Center for Transportation Research 2 BEVO JoJo Heselmeyer Senior Manager DPS ‐ resource Texas Department of Public Safety 2 BEVO Esther Martin Training Coordinator Texas Department of Public Safety 2 BEVO Laird Doran Vice President Government Relations & Senior Counsel The Friedkin Group / Gulf States Toyota 2 BEVO

• Dr. Michael St. Denis

Safety Researcher Revecorp Inc. 2 BEVO Edgar Gilmore Mobile Source Program Coordinator Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 3 BEVO Brandy Savarese CTR Research Associate UT Center for Transportation Research 3 BEVO Oscar Galvis Graduate Research Assistant UT‐Center for Transportation Research 3 BEVO Carolina Baumanis Research/Engineering Scientist Associate UT‐Center for Transportation Research 3 BEVO Abel Porras Co‐Chair DPS Vehicle Inspection Advisory Board 3 BEVO Mike Butler VP Operations Parsons 3 BEVO Mike Sullivan Director of Governmental and Public Affairs Group 1 Automotive (NYSE: GPI) 3 BEVO Ed Martin Chair, Board of Directors Texas State Inspection Association

BEVO Breakout ‐ Session Numbers 1 ‐ 3

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Breakout Session Number Breakout Meeting Room Name Title Company affiliation 4 Stadium Lisa Loftus‐Otway Senior Research Scientist UT‐Center for Transportation Research 4 Stadium Ahmed Ahsan Graduate Research Assistant UT‐Center for Transportation Research 4 Stadium Natalia Ruiz Research Associate UT‐CTR ‐ Network Modeling Center 4 Stadium Rosemary Guerrero Operations Manager Texas Department of Public Safety 4 Stadium James Williams Senior Engineer Williamson County 4 Stadium Michael Nowels Executive Director Texas State Inspection Association 4 Stadium Joseph Battista VP Sales Parsons 5 Stadium Darren Hazlett CTR Researcher UT‐Center for Transportation Research 5 Stadium Srijith Balakrishnan Graduate Research Assistant UT‐Center for Transportation Research 5 Stadium Jim Schutz Training Specialist Texas Department of Public Safety 5 Stadium Candy Southerland Management Analyst TxDMV Vehicle Titles & Registration 5 Stadium John Firm ASA Texas Firm Automotive 5 Stadium Pete Villari Executive Vice President DEKRA North America

Stadium Breakout ‐ Session Numbers 4 ‐ 5

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Breakout Session Number Breakout Meeting Room Name Title Company affiliation Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Mike Murphy CTR ‐ Deputy Director UT ‐ Center for Transportation Research Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Laura Kolstad Government Affairs Staffer Texas Department of Transportation Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Morris Brown Mobile Source Programs Team Leader Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Alexander Ansley Senior Safety Recall Specialist U.S. DOT / NHTSA Webex Webex ‐ Balcones David Serrins Mobile Source Programs Team Work Lead Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Sarah Thomas Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Marissa Duron Vehicle Inspection Texas Department of Public Safety Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Chris Murphy ASA Texas President Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Micah Harmon Sheriff Lavaca County, TX Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Shawn Dintino Air Quality Planner, VIAC member North Central Texas Council of Governments Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Brooke Remes Director Stout Advisory Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Shelly Richardson President HAF, Inc Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Joshua Swedlow Stout Advisory Webex Webex ‐ Balcones Mark Long Training Specialist Texas Department of Public Safety

Balcones WebEx Breakout

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Breakout Session Questions

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Does anyone have a Question they would like to add to the list?

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

‘BiG Data’ Analysis Preliminary Results Nan Jiang, Ph.D., P.E. CTR – Associate Researcher

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Primary Data Sources

• 1. TxDOT Crash Data
• 2010‐2017
• Over 600,000 crashes each year
• 2. DPS Texas Highway Patrol High Value Data Sets

(Citation Data)

• 2010‐2016
• About 4‐5 million records each year
• 3. TxDMV Vehicle Registration Data
• 2015‐2017
• Over 22 million records each year

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

TxDOT Crash Data

• TxDOT maintains a statewide, automated

database for reportable motor vehicle traffic crashes received by TxDOT.

• Crash data are submitted by Texas law

enforcement officers on form CR‐3, Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

TxDOT crash costs*:

• Fatal Crash: $3,500,000
• Type A Injury: $3,500,000
• Type B Injury: $500,000

Crash Severity Type 2015 2016 2017 PV CMV PV CMV PV CMV Killed 85 31 93 23 87 21 Incapacitating Injury 310 38 367 46 345 44 Non‐Incapacitating Injury 1171 111 1304 129 1408 146 Possible Injury 1577 159 1803 123 1770 144 Not Injured 6242 736 6970 736 6837 889 Total 9562 1079 10736 1060 10660 1251

Personal vehicle (PV); commercial motor vehicle (CMV)

Crashes Involving Defective Vehicles

*2018 dollars from TxDOT 2018 Highway Safety Improvement Program Call

The costs of those crashes involving defective vehicles:

• 2015: $1,968 million (PV) + $297 million (CMV) = $2.3 billion
• 2016: $2,262 million (PV) + $306 million (CMV) = $2.6 billion
• 2017: $2,216 million (PV) + $300.5 million (CMV) = $2.5 billon

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

A comparison between vehicles with and without defects using 2017 fatalities and incapacitating injuries as an example:

PV No Defects PV with Defects CMV No Defects CMV with Defects Number of fatalities 3070 96 588 21 Number of vehicles in crashes 1,055,040 10,972 76,048 1273 Fatalities per number of vehicles in crashes 1 fatality / 343 vehicles 1 fatality / 114 vehicles 1 fatality / 129 vehicles 1 fatality / 60 vehicles PV No Defects PV with Defects CMV No Defects CMV with Defects Number of incapacitating injuries 16056 480 1491 53 Number of vehicles in crashes 1,055,040 10,972 76,048 1273 Incapacitating injuries per number

• f vehicles in crashes

1 incap injury / 65 vehicles 1 incap injury / 22 vehicles 1 incap injury / 51 vehicles 1 incap injury / 24 vehicles

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 2015 2016 2017 Percent Year

Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes

PV without defect PV with defect

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

2.3% 2.2% 2.3% 3.2% 3.3% 3.2% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 2015 2016 2017 Percent Year

Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Incapacitating Injury Crashes

PV without defect PV with defect

Similar trends are

• bserved for CMVs

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 2015 2016 2017 Percent Year

Percentage of Fatal Crashes

Crashes don't involve any defective PVs Crashes involve at least one defective PVs

Similar trends are

• bserved for CMVs

2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 3.2% 3.4% 3.2% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 2015 2016 2017 Percent Year

Percentage of Incapacitating Injury Crashes

Crashes don't involve any defective PVs Crashes involve at least one defective PVs

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Defective Or No Trailer Brakes Defective Trailer Hitch Defective Or No Turn Signal Lamps Defective Or No Vehicle Brakes Defective Steering Mechanism Defective Or No Head/Tail/Stop lamps Other (Explain In Narrative) Defective Or Slick Tires

Defect Types of Passenger Vehicles

Fatal Crashes All crashes

Over 70% of defective vehicles involved in fatal crashes have defective or slick tires.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Defective Or No Trailer Brakes Defective Trailer Hitch Defective Or No Turn Signal Lamps Defective Or No Vehicle Brakes Defective Steering Mechanism Defective Or No Head/Tail/Stop Lamps Other (Explain In Narrative) Defective Or Slick Tires

Defect Types of Commercial Vehicles

Fatal Crashes All crashes

Over 30% of defective commercial vehicles involved in fatal crashes have defective or slick tires, followed by vehicles with defective or no brakes.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

Texas has over 82,000 lane miles of roadways with speed limits equal to or greater than 70 mph and carrying over 150 million VMT per day.

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Crash rate Speed Limit

Passenger Vehicle Crashes with Speed Limit

Number of Crashes per Million VMT Percentage of crashes with defective vehicles

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

Among all crashes with defective passenger vehicles, more severe crashes happen on roadways with higher speed limits.

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 percentage Crash rate Speed Limit

Number and Severity of Defective Passenger Vehicle Crashes with Speed Limit

Number of crashes with defective vehicles per million VMT Percentage of Fatal and Incapacitating Injury crashes

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

• Crash data include information about the license

plate state of vehicles involved in crashes.

• The percentage of vehicles with defects among all

vehicles are calculated for each state and averaged from 2010‐2017.

• A comparison between states with and without

vehicle safety inspection programs is conducted using an ANOVA test.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

The statistic test results show that significant difference between the percentage of defective vehicles in states with and without vehicle inspection (VI) programs.

Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance No VI 34 0.314062 0.92% 8.01E‐06 With VI 18 0.125891 0.70% 1.14E‐05 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P‐value F crit Between Groups 5.92E‐05 1 5.922E‐05 6.461622 0.014168 4.03431 Within Groups 0.000458 50 9.1649E‐06 Total 0.000517 51

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

DPS Citation Data

• TxDPS maintains the Texas Highway Patrol

database, which includes information about each traffic stop made by law enforcement

• fficers.
• 32% of stopped vehicles are CMVs and 68% of

stopped vehicles are PVs.

• The Violation category is used to identify

vehicles with defects.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

• Five types of defects are included in the

analysis:

‐ Brakes ‐ Lights ‐ Steering ‐ Tires/Axle/Wheels ‐ Windows/Film/Glazing

• 53% of stopped CMVs and 10% of stopped PVs have
• ne or more types of these defects.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

Brakes, 1% Lights, 86% Steering, 0% Tires/Axle/Wheels, 1% Windows/Film/ Glazing, 12%

Defect Types of Passenger Vehicles

Brakes, 34% Lights, 40% Steering, 3% Tires/Axle/Wh eels, 16% Windows/Film /Glazing, 8%

Defect Types of Commercial Vehicles

Law enforcement officers are required to conduct a more thorough check of CMVs, but not required to do that for PVs.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Data Analysis Preliminary Results

Brakes, 1% Lights, 86% Steering, 0% Tires/Axle/Wheels, 1% Windows/Film /Glazing, 12%

Defect Types of Passenger Vehicles Stopped by Law Enforcement Officer on Road

Some types of vehicle defects are hard to capture by law enforcement officers on the roadside.

Defective or no vehicle brakes, 4% Defective steering mechanism, 4% Defective or no head/tail/Stop lamps, 6% Other, 15% Defective or slick tires, 70%

Defect Types of Passenger Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

TxDMV Vehicle Registration Data

• TxDMV provided vehicle year and body type of

all vehicles registered in Texas in 2015‐2017.

• Vehicle body type was used to determine if a

vehicle is a PV or a CMV.

All vehicles Vehicles had crashes Defective vehicles had crashes PV 8 8 12 CMV 10 8 11

Average Vehicle Age

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Preliminary Findings

• The frequency of a fatality or an incapacitating injury

is higher for defective‐vehicle‐related crashes.

• Total crash cost caused by defective vehicles is

considerably high.

• The percentage of crashes involving defective

vehicles increases with higher speed limits. So does the severity of those crashes.

• Vehicles from states with vehicle safety inspection

programs are less likely to have defects.

• Defective vehicles that had crashes are older than

the average vehicles.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Some Additional Points

• Crashes not only hurt people, but can also cause

significant traffic congestion and delay to many other travelers.

• The value of time spent waiting for a vehicle to be

inspected versus waiting in traffic can significantly differ.

• Defective vehicles are prone to random breakdowns

that could cause traffic congestion and delay. These single‐vehicle incidences are not captured by crash data.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Vehicle Safety Inspection Program Revenue and Expenses

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

State Revenue and Expenses

Passenger Vehicle Safety Inspection State Perspective Revenue Expenses

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

State Revenues

• Vehicle Owner Registration Fees

–$7.50 1‐year inspection –$16.75 2‐year inspection (new vehicles)

• Station Certification Fee

–$100 + $2 per station every other year

• Inspector Certification Fees

–$25 + $2 per inspector every other year

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

State Expenses

• Equipment supplied by the state (DIR)

– VIC unit – Supplied for stations in safety only counties (6544

• ut of 11957 stations)
• Cost of website, database, and interfaces
• Cost of Audit Programs
• Cost of Administration and Overhead
• Cost of Program Signs for Stations.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Station Ow ners’ Revenue and Expenses

Passenger Vehicle Safety Inspection Station Owners’ Perspective Revenue Expenses

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Station Revenues

• Vehicle Owner Inspection Fees

– $7 per vehicle (max) – Station owners are free to charge less, but not more.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Station Expenses

• Reporting Equipment

– Emissions Counties (17 Counties) (5413 Stations)

• Emission Test Equipment (also functions for safety too) Approx $8000 one‐

time cost and $800/yr service

– Safety Only Counties (237 Counties) (6544 Stations)

• Safety Inspection Equipment provided by the state

– Data Transmission line (telephone or internet)

• Station Certification Fee

– $100 plus $2 website fee per station every other year

• Inspector Certification Fees

– $25 plus $2 website fee per inspector every other year

• One Time Equipment Costs

– Tire Depth Gage – Gas Cap Tester – Tint Meter

• Liability Insurance?

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Have We Identified all Sources of Revenue and Expenses for All Parties?

Passenger Vehicle Safety Inspection

Revenue Expenses

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Thank You

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

‘Incorporating Open Recalls in the MVSIP’

• Dr. Michael St. Denis, President

ReveCorp

• Dr. Michael St. Denis ‐ Revecorp Inc.

State Vehicle Safety Inspection Program Workshop University of Texas at Austin’s Pickle Research Campus June 26, 2018

Revecorp Inc.

 Revecorp has worked with many states designing and

implementing vehicle safety and/or emissions inspection programs for over 20 years

 Technical support contractor to US EPA on vehicle inspections  Currently assisting several states with program effectiveness

improvements

 Design, build, operate and maintain data systems for vehicle

inspections and test systems

 Provide vehicle test parameter data and recall data to vehicle

inspection programs

 Perform basic vehicle research  The opinions presented are those only of Revecorp

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 Background on recalls  Improving safety by improving recall remedy rates through

new notification methods

 Findings from a recall notification study  Public benefits to Texas residents by improving recall

notifications in the inspection process

 Should recall compliance be mandatory and issues with the

current recall notification process

 Conclusions

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 New technologies have reduced the number of fatalities 80% from

1950 to 2010 – while the number of vehicles has grown by five (50 to 265 million) – a 25 fold decrease in the chance of a fatality

 Still, NHTSA estimates vehicle crashes are the number one killer of

Americans under age 34 at a cost of $230 billion annually

 There are three types of notifications – Safety (NHTSA), Emissions

(EPA or CARB) and vehicle manufacturer Customer Service

 Repairs are free to the current vehicle, but can only be performed

at a dealership

 Recall compliance is almost always voluntary  For safety, the vehicle manufacturer must try to notify the owner

directly at least once, some try multiple methods

 Notification via State registration systems is difficult  A survey of motorists indicates that 65% get recalls completed,

30% say the “will complete” and 5% say they will never complete

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 NHTSA manages safety recalls. However, their job is only to:

• Make sure vehicle manufacturers notify owners of affected

vehicles in a timely manner

• Confirm repair(s) will fix the problem
• NHTSA does not house, distribute or track recall data directly

 US EPA regulations require emissions recalls in emissions

testing programs (40 CFR § 51.370) ‐ currently not enforced

 California Air Resources Board (CARB) enforces emissions

recalls through registration denial by CA DMV

 Each vehicle manufacturer stores, tracks, distributes and

reports recall data independently

 Vehicle manufactures are trying to help – they just

developed a single point recall data system

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 News of recalls are ever more common – 28% of all motorists say

they received a recall notice in the last two years

 Safety recalls for approximately 60 million vehicles were

announced last year – many are very serious

 The Takata air bag recall is one of the largest ever and could impact

100 million air bags in 80 million vehicles, so getting enough parts is difficult (there are about 265 million vehicles in the US)

• In 19 makes of vehicles
• 19 fatalities and over 140 injuries to date – Worse in hot and humid

locations

• However, US DOT estimates air bags between 1987‐2012 saved 37,000

lives

 The Takata “Alpha” air bag recall has a 50% chance of causing

death or serious injury if the air bag is activated – Every effort must be made to locate vehicles with these Takata inflators

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc. Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 Most state motor vehicle agencies overwhelmed so distributing recall

information is a low priority. Many have very old computer systems and cannot handle integrating and printing recall data

 Currently, CA is the only state making recall compliance mandatory

and that is only for emissions ‐ but it is > 95% effective. Other states have considered making recall compliance mandatory

 Revecorp came up with the idea of printing recall data on vehicle

inspection reports when vehicles get state inspections

 This can could create over 150 million “touchpoints” with unique

vehicles in the US in two years – making inspection programs ideal for reaching vehicle owners

 This places recall information into the hands of the current owner, on

a government form, with real time correct information at a low cost

 Honda sponsored Revecorp to research this idea

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 The District of Columbia and Vermont DMVs were to start printing

print recall data on vehicle inspection reports January 2017

 This provided the opportunity to measure if there was an increase in

remedy rates before and after the new printed notifications

 We tracked recall remedy rates on vehicles being inspected for three

months prior (without notifications) as a “baseline”

 Once providing recall data with inspection, determined if recall

remedy rates had increased (are more cars getting fixed)

 The notification process works like this:

• A vehicle arrives for inspection and the VIN is scanned
• The VIN is sent to Revecorp, we get recalls info from the vehicle

manufacturer

• Recall data is returned in under a second
• At the end of the inspection, the test system prints the recall data on the

vehicle inspection report

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc. Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 23.1% of all vehicles in DC had one or more open recalls  21.4% of all vehicles in VT had one or more open recalls  10.1% of all vehicles had an open recall for an “air bag”  5.1% of the vehicles with recalls or 1.2% of all vehicles

indicated “parts not available” or equivalent

 Baseline recall remedy rate was 6.8%  Recall remedy after handing out recall data with inspection

information was 28.2%, a 400% increase

 Recall rates for older vehicles increased dramatically  Providing recall data continues today ‐ In 2017, between DC

and VT there were 800,000 vehicles inspected and there were 30,000 additional recalls closed

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 Approximately 10% of vehicles in the US are in Texas  Vehicle crashes in the US cost $230 billion annually – So the

cost in Texas is approximately $23 billion

 Two parts to the program

• “Non‐Attainment” for the air quality standards (DFW, Austin, Houston,

El Paso) – Tests for both emissions and safety

• Rest of the state – Tests for safety only

 Only in the Non‐Attainment areas with emissions and safety

is any recall data printed

 Only emissions recall data is printed  Recall data is automatically printed when there is a failure for

• emissions. There is an option for the inspection station to

print a recall when a vehicle passes

 Recall data is provided on a “advisory only” basis

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 In both areas, at the end of inspection, provide a Recall

Report to the approximately 22% of vehicle owners who have an open recall

 In some cases, the parts to remedy the recall are not yet

available, we note that on the recall notice

 Some private shops will be hesitant to refer customers to

dealerships

 The OEM data system provides raw text based data – it takes

work to integrate into an inspection report or registration

 Revecorp streamlined the process:

• Send in VIN, get back a PDF with currently open recalls
• If you submit a zip code too, it also prints the three nearest dealerships
• If you include an email address, the PDF is automatically emailed

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc. Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 Approximately 20,000,000 safety inspections a year in the

two Texas inspection programs – 4,400,000 vehicles have an

• pen safety recall

 Could get an additional 968,000 recalls closed per year simply

by printing and providing recall data – Saving lives

 The average recall repair is $250 and the cost is paid by the

vehicle OEMs to the dealerships in Texas

 Approximately $242,000,000 a year would come into Texas

from out of state by providing recall data with every inspection

 Leverages a current system to provides economic, safety and

clean air benefits to the public

 “Saving Lives and Lungs”

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 In Revecorp’s opinion, recall compliance should be mandatory  States deny registration for failure to repair emissions control

systems, not paying parking tickets, not paying registration, etc.

 Wearing seat belts in vehicles is required because it is in the public

health and safety interest

 Should someone be able to drive a known dangerous or high

polluting vehicle on road – endangering others lives and/or lungs – when a repair has been mandated by government and is free?

 Issuing recalls and notifications do not create benefits  Remedy of recalls is what provides safety or environmental benefits  States are the only ones who can prevent the sale or operation of

dangerous or polluting vehicles

 Should states have emissions and/or safety testing programs without

requiring compliance with emissions and/or safety recalls?

 Timely data indicating when a recall is completed is needed to

require compliance with recalls

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc.

 Providing recall information to motorists on a government

form, at the time of inspection significantly increases recall remedy rates

 Increased recall remedy rates in the Texas vehicle inspeton

program can enhance safety and air quality benefits by providing recall data during vehicle inspections

 There are significant economic benefits to the State from

providing recall data with vehicle inspection

 A system exists to provide the required recall data in a simple

format, requiring low effort to distribute notifications

 The recall notifications should be printed and included in

vehicle registrations

 All states should consider making recall compliance

mandatory

Revecorp Inc.

• Dr. Michael St. Denis

5732 Lonetree Blvd Rocklin, CA 95661 Michael@Revecorp.com (916) 786‐1006

Revecorp Inc.

Revecorp Inc. Revecorp Inc.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

‘Some Preliminary results from online surveys: Motorists and Station Operators’ Mike Murphy, Ph.D., P.E. CTR

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Poster Placed in Vehicle Inspection Stations

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Over 6,000 individual emails sent to Texans based on random selection of email addresses obtained from Chambers of Commerce, employee lists, many other sources

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

To date………

• 1,721 Vehicle Owner Surveys Submitted,
• 1,450 Surveys all Inspection Questions answered
• 507 Female……Females about 30% of all Texas fatalities
• 927 Male……… Males about 70% of all Texas fatalities
• 16 no response
• Median vehicle model year: 2011, Average 2010
• Average Vehicle Year: Male 2009, Female 2011
• Responses from 204 counties out of 254 total counties.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

To date………

• For this study, County Urban / Rural designations: US

Census Bureau 2010 data (Urban, Mostly Urban, Rural, Mostly Rural) 118 urban/mostly urban, 136 rural, mostly rural counties

• 2016 Total Fatalities = 3,773; Urban 1,831, Rural 1,942
• Survey Responses to date:
• 1,099 surveys from urban / mostly urban counties
• 245 surveys from rural / mostly rural counties

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

1,426 total responses to date (6‐30‐18)

245 661 242 278 81% of respondents think that they are receiving a service when their car is inspected.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

1,454 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) 248 17.0% 141 9.7% 212 14.6% 362 24.9% 491 33.8%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Too Expensive Priced Right Less than I would have expected Unsure or Neutral

Numbere of Responses Question Response Categories Motor Vehicle Owners Cost of an Inspection compared to Value and Benefits Received

1,160 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) Note: 49% of “Too Expensive” responses are from Emissions Counties

281 19.4% 647 44.7% 344 23.7% 177 12.2%

Note: These survey results include responses from motorists located in emissions inspection counties and counties in which only the Vehicle Safety Inspection is conducted. However, the survey respondents were not advised that the survey questions only applied to the $7.00 Safety Inspection fee and not the combined Safety and Emissions Inspection fee.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Definitely Yes Probably Yes Might or Might Not Probably Not Definitely Not

Number of Survey Responses Response Category Do you think vehicles with defects can contribute to an accident?

Motor Vehicle Owner – Survey Regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Inspections

1,450 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) 1,097 75.6% 176 12.2% 139 9.6% 29 2.0% 9 0.6%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.
• We asked Motorists several questions about

the Vehicle Inspection Program over the period

• f time they have had cars inspected.
• This could be 1 year to 40 years, experience

with vehicle inspection varied and was not always stated.

• We also asked “In the past, have you had a Motor

Vehicle Safety Inspection which found a safety problem that required repairs or replacement parts for your vehicle?

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

200 400 600 800 1000 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Number of Survey Response Response Category

Do you think having a Vehicle Inspection Program helps Improve Highway Safety?

Motor Vehicle Owner – Survey Regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Inspections

1,469 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) 753 51.3% 301 20.5% 75 5.1% 130 8.9% 210 14.3%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

200 400 600 800 1000 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Number of Survey Response Response Category

Do you think having a Vehicle Inspection Program helps Improve Highway Safety?

Motor Vehicle Owner – Survey Regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Inspections

Percentage of respondents in this category who have never had a part replaced

• r needed a repair during an

Inspection.

100% 75% 0% 50% 87 68% 233 31% 39 52% 142 47%

1469 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) 646 total responses report never requiring a repair.

145 70%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

What does this mean?

Based on this sample, approximately 44% of drivers report that they have never required a repair or a replacement part to pass an inspection. However, 56% of drivers have required a repair or a replacement part to pass an inspection at least once, and as many as 15 times, over the years. What does this mean with regard to ‘first time failure rate’? Is ‘first time failure rate only meaningful from year to year, or over the life of the Inspection Program?

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

100 200 300 400 500 600

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Number of Responses Response Categories

Urban Counties ‐ Do you think having a Vehicle Safety Inspection Program in Texas helps improve highway safety?

Motor Vehicle Owner – Survey Regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Inspections

1,099 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) 542 49.3% 236 21.5% 59 5.4% 99 9.0% 163 14.8%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Number of Responses

Response Categories Rural Counties ‐ Do you think having a Vehicle Safety Inspection Program in Texas helps improve highway safety?

Motor Vehicle Owner – Survey Regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Inspections

245 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) 150 61.2% 42 17.1% 10 4.1% 20 8.2% 23 9.4%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

1,437 total responses to date (6‐30‐18)

548 38.1% 238 16.6% 118 8.2% 234 16.3% 299 20.8%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Percentage of respondents in this category who have never had a part replaced

• r needed a repair during an

Inspection.

100% 75% 0% 50%

1,437 total responses to date (6‐30‐18)

71.9% 56.4% 43.2% 29.6% 34.0%

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

“I am fully aware of standard Inspection requirements and normally maintain my vehicle, and know what needs to be in working condition for my State inspection.” “I fixed (defects) before I ever got (my car) inspection!” “I always keep my vehicle maintained I fix problems as they occurred” “I repair my own cars, trucks, and motorcycles. If a problem develops, I fix it when it happens. I don't wait until the next annual inspection to find a problem.” “I keep my vehicle in tip top shape”

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.
• Mass Email with online Survey Line sent to over 6,500

Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Stations Statewide

• Periodic Reminders from DPS and CTR to take the Survey

Vehicle Inspection Station Survey

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

To date………

1,292 Vehicle Inspection Station Surveys received. 1,124 Surveys: all inspection questions answered. Responses from 170 counties out of 254 total counties.

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

1,159 total responses to date (6‐30‐18)

50 100 150 200 250 1 ‐ 5 vehicles 6 ‐ 10 vehicles 11 ‐ 20 vehicles 21 ‐ 30 vehicles 31 ‐ 40 vehicles 41 ‐ 50 vehicles 51 ‐ 75 vehicles 76 ‐ 100 vehicles 101 ‐ 150 vehicles greater than 150 vehicles Number of Survey Responses Response Categories Number of Vehicles Inspected Per Week by Different Stations

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

1,150 total responses to date (6‐30‐18) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Severely Impacted Slightly Impacted Not Impacted at All Im not sure Number of Stations Response Categories How will your business be impacted if the passenger Vehicle Safety Inspection Program is eliminated in Texas?

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1 ‐ 5 Vehicles 6 ‐ 10 Vehicles 11 ‐ 20 Vehicles 21 ‐ 30 Vehicles 31 ‐ 40 vehicles 41 ‐ 50 vehicles 51 ‐ 75 vehicles 76 ‐100 vehicles 101 ‐ 150 vehicles greater than 150 vehicles

Numbe of Survey Responses Categories ‐ Number of Vehicles Inspected per Week Inspection Stations that would be Severely Impacted if Motor Vehicle Inspections were eliminated for passenger vehicles; categorized by number of vehicles inspected per week 550 total responses to date (6‐30‐18)

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1 ‐ 5 Vehicles 6 ‐ 10 Vehicles 11 ‐ 20 Vehicles 21 ‐ 30 Vehicles 31 ‐ 40 vehicles 41 ‐ 50 vehicles 51 ‐ 75 vehicles 76 ‐100 vehicles 101 ‐ 150 vehicles greater than 150 vehicles

Number of Survey Responses Categories ‐ Number of Vehicles Inspected per Week Inspection Stations that Won't be Impacted at all if Motor Vehicle Inspections for passenger vehicles were eliminated; categorized by number of vehicles inspected per week 203 total responses to date (6‐30‐18)

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

200 400 600 800 1000 Definitely Yes Probably Yes Might or Might Not Probably Not Definitely Not

Number of Survey Responses Response Categories

Do You think the Vehicle Safety Inspection Program Improves Highway Safety In Texas?

51 of 71 respondents ‘Probably Not’ Business would not Be impacted at all if MVSI was eliminated. 30 of 35 respondents, “Definitely Not”, Business would not Be impacted at all if MVSI was eliminated. The majority of both categories inspect < 30 vehicles per week

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

To date……… analysis is ongoing

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Buffet Lunch 11:00 AM - noon

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Unfixed Recalls: What is the problem?

• Manufacturers have a responsibility to get all recalled vehicles fixed
• Manufacturers want to & committed to it.
• Takata ~ about 11 ‐ 12 million recalls/ ~ 1 million left
• These vehicles are 10 ‐20 years old
• Outreach made average of 48 times per person as high as 200 times
• Via social media, letters, notes, calls
• May not be same owner, same address, may be scrapped
• Can’t find them all or can’t confirm the vehicle is not on the road
• Texas is a key Takata state; high heat & humidity states greater risk

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Recalls : What can be done?

• We have done basically what we can think of to reach them
• Seeking other touchpoints are the key. Who else can notify? (Insurers)
• 34 states have inspection programs Inspection facility & registration

Option 1: State can really help by requiring they get fixed

• It’s good policy

Role of state is to protect public safety Role of DMV is highway safety

• Payment of fees, tickets, insurance, child support all mandatory before

registered why not get recalls fixed? Option 2 – Inspection facilities to notify of open recalls

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

How can this be done? The Value?

• For a long time could only look up individual VINs making it tedious &

time consuming requirement to do research.

• All OEMs recently got together created a BATCH VIN look up system

through Carfax

• This enables states, insurers, dealers, repair shops, salvage yards to

access the info from manufacturers re: which vehicle & what recall Value to the state?

• Keeping people safe, saving lives
• Less accidents, safer roads
• Safer drivers, passengers, taxis, Uber/Lyft, Car Sharing, Pedestrians
• Therefore use notifying of recalls makes Inspection programs cost
• effective. Getting another practical important value of the program

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Contact Information

Ember Brillhart Honda State Relations 1001 G. Street, NW Suite 950 Washington, DC 20001 202‐661‐4400 Ember_Brillhart@hna.honda.com

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Workshop Breakout Sessions noon – 2PM Bevo Meeting Room Stadium Meeting Room WebEX – Balcones Meeting Room

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Workshop Breakout Sessions Summaries 2 PM – 3 PM

• COLLABORATE. INNOVATE. EDUCATE.

Questions?