Unregistered Carriers on 11/25/2009 - 1512
Unregistered Carriers on 11/30/2009 - 1481
Maine - 93.29%
Illinois - 93.02%
We start the morning .27% behind Maine. With just a little bit of luck, we might be able to catch them by the end of this week.
Today marks the last day of the month. November has been a pretty fair month for us. We have registered 448 carriers and taken in a little over $39K, for an average registration amount of $87.
For those of you who have been reading this blog for a while, you know that $80+ is a fairly steady number for us over the past year of post-rush registrations. That's certainly a long way from $39.
Here's an aside from the CVSA news bulletin today. According to eTrucker magazine, 4 states have vehicle out-of-service ratios above 33%. I'm not an expert on MCSAP, but doesn't that mean - or at least imply - that, if inspected, one vehicle out of every three trucks that are on the highway in those states would be put out of service?
By the way, the next six states are over 28% - which doesn't seem much better. Perhaps someone can explain the error in my thinking to me ...
Back on the UCR front (can I turn a phrase or what?), today is shaping up to be a pretty good day. Look out Maine!!!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
UCR "Wars - The Saturday Edition - 11/28/09
Unregistered Carriers on 11/28/2009 - 1481
By now, I hope everyone has successfully expressed their thanks - by stuffing their face full of turkey, potatoes, dressing, pie, etc. and falling asleep in front of the TV.
Here's where we were a week ago:
Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.91%
Here's where we are today:
Maine - 93.29%
Illinois - 93.05%
Using these numbers, we need to take about 60 more guys off our Unregistered List to catch Maine - if they stand still, that is.
Meanwhile, we are now ahead of California by about 150 registrations, as opposed to 110 registrations last Saturday.
You know, I'm starting to think that the Feds's weekend data updates are a little like the Federal legislation process: you know where you are at the start of the process, but you have no idea how they arrived at their end product.
Have a great rest of the weekend, everyone!
By now, I hope everyone has successfully expressed their thanks - by stuffing their face full of turkey, potatoes, dressing, pie, etc. and falling asleep in front of the TV.
Here's where we were a week ago:
Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.91%
Here's where we are today:
Maine - 93.29%
Illinois - 93.05%
Using these numbers, we need to take about 60 more guys off our Unregistered List to catch Maine - if they stand still, that is.
Meanwhile, we are now ahead of California by about 150 registrations, as opposed to 110 registrations last Saturday.
You know, I'm starting to think that the Feds's weekend data updates are a little like the Federal legislation process: you know where you are at the start of the process, but you have no idea how they arrived at their end product.
Have a great rest of the weekend, everyone!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The United Motorcoach Association "Piles On"
Unregistered Carriers on 11/24/2009 - 1532
Unregistered Carriers on 11/25/2009 - 1512
Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.91%
The United Motorcoach Association was featured in the FMCSA News Summary the other day echoing many of the same UCR "sentiments" that the rest of "big industry" has been yelling about since summer.
They make the following points:
The 122% proposed increase in fees is not "reasonable", especially in a year when the economy and businesses are suffering.
Neither the FMCSA nor individual states are doing enough to expand collections under the UCRA or to find scofflaws that are not paying.
A plan to increase compliance seems to escape participating states.
FMCSA only suggests that increased compliance might mitigate the need for such a tremendous increase in fees.
FMCSA is rewarding states for poor performance, punishing compliant carriers and encouraging noncompliant carriers to remain so.
Now is the time to develop "a more fair and effective method" to supplement the revenue needed by states to carry out their safety enforcement efforts.
UMA goes on to recommend the following:
1. Abandon any plans to increase UCRA fees in 2010.
2. Require states to increase collection enforcement and submit plans demonstrating increased enforcement.
3. Immediately solicit alternative proposals for methods that may prove more effective in supplementing states and replace UCRA altogether.
4. Based on increased compliance and public proposals, more ‘reasonable' fees should be established for Jan. 1, 2011, implementation and published no later than July 1, 2010 should UCRA prove viable."
You know, I would love to sit down and talk to the folks who created this document and these suggestions.
With all due respect, I wonder whether they even understand what they're talking about beyond "Wow, that's a big increase!", primarily because of their recommendation #1. They don't seem to be aware that a huge chunk of the increase can be traced directly to the elimination of trailers, which even the "big truck people" concede is (dare I use the term?) "reasonable" because of the changes to the law. In fact, industry was "not so quietly" pushing for the scenario that raised fees 60-70% as a "reasonable compromise in this economy". At least give us lazy, poor-performing, non-compliance-encouraging, unimaginative State and Federal folks credit for that much!
As you know, I could go on (and on and on) about this document and all the other position statements made by industry regarding the fee increase, but it's Thanksgiving week and I'm feeling thankful for a lot of things.
One thing I'm especially thankful for is that I have been at the Bingo Stamp / SSRS / UCR "table" for a lot of years now (side-by side with industry, I might add) ... and I seem to be one of the (few) people who is able to remember how we got where we are. Maybe we'll reminisce a little about that next week.
Meanwhile ... Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!!!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/25/2009 - 1512
Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.91%
The United Motorcoach Association was featured in the FMCSA News Summary the other day echoing many of the same UCR "sentiments" that the rest of "big industry" has been yelling about since summer.
They make the following points:
The 122% proposed increase in fees is not "reasonable", especially in a year when the economy and businesses are suffering.
Neither the FMCSA nor individual states are doing enough to expand collections under the UCRA or to find scofflaws that are not paying.
A plan to increase compliance seems to escape participating states.
FMCSA only suggests that increased compliance might mitigate the need for such a tremendous increase in fees.
FMCSA is rewarding states for poor performance, punishing compliant carriers and encouraging noncompliant carriers to remain so.
Now is the time to develop "a more fair and effective method" to supplement the revenue needed by states to carry out their safety enforcement efforts.
UMA goes on to recommend the following:
1. Abandon any plans to increase UCRA fees in 2010.
2. Require states to increase collection enforcement and submit plans demonstrating increased enforcement.
3. Immediately solicit alternative proposals for methods that may prove more effective in supplementing states and replace UCRA altogether.
4. Based on increased compliance and public proposals, more ‘reasonable' fees should be established for Jan. 1, 2011, implementation and published no later than July 1, 2010 should UCRA prove viable."
You know, I would love to sit down and talk to the folks who created this document and these suggestions.
With all due respect, I wonder whether they even understand what they're talking about beyond "Wow, that's a big increase!", primarily because of their recommendation #1. They don't seem to be aware that a huge chunk of the increase can be traced directly to the elimination of trailers, which even the "big truck people" concede is (dare I use the term?) "reasonable" because of the changes to the law. In fact, industry was "not so quietly" pushing for the scenario that raised fees 60-70% as a "reasonable compromise in this economy". At least give us lazy, poor-performing, non-compliance-encouraging, unimaginative State and Federal folks credit for that much!
As you know, I could go on (and on and on) about this document and all the other position statements made by industry regarding the fee increase, but it's Thanksgiving week and I'm feeling thankful for a lot of things.
One thing I'm especially thankful for is that I have been at the Bingo Stamp / SSRS / UCR "table" for a lot of years now (side-by side with industry, I might add) ... and I seem to be one of the (few) people who is able to remember how we got where we are. Maybe we'll reminisce a little about that next week.
Meanwhile ... Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!!!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Staying the UCR Course
Unregistered Carriers on 11/20/2009 - 1575
Unregistered Carriers on 11/24/2009 - 1532
Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.82%
We had a big registration day yesterday - 50 registrations! Many of these registrations were a direct result of good old persistence coupled with our concerted efforts to clear up the MCMIS records with old MCS-150 update dates.
Currently, we need a NET reduction of right around 100 unregistered carriers to catch Maine. You'll recall that catching them is a moving target depending upon what THEY do. My thought is this: if we improve faster than they improve, we'll still catch them one of these days - even if they continue to improve their percentage.
Having said that, we may encounter a slight setback today in that we are expecting a delayed batch of additions from the Feds. In fact, everybody may be facing the same delayed adds. The Fed update schedule still baffles me a little, but it seems like everything eventually "comes out in the wash".
If you've been following this blog, you know that we have now increased our registration percentage by 1.43% this month. The next highest November percentage increase is, ironically, Maine at .36%.
It's interesting to note that the registration percentage for some states is actually going backward for the month. Going backwards can easily happen in this part of the registration cycle if you register less of your state's carriers than the number of new "UCR Universe" USDOT numbers added in your state.
I've said it before - I think FOCUS is really important. If you focus on getting better at UCR, you probably will. Conversely, if you don't focus on getting better at UCR, chances are good that you won't. You may even get worse - at least from a registration percentage standpoint.
The most important UCR best practice may be making the decision to get better at UCR.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/24/2009 - 1532
Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.82%
We had a big registration day yesterday - 50 registrations! Many of these registrations were a direct result of good old persistence coupled with our concerted efforts to clear up the MCMIS records with old MCS-150 update dates.
Currently, we need a NET reduction of right around 100 unregistered carriers to catch Maine. You'll recall that catching them is a moving target depending upon what THEY do. My thought is this: if we improve faster than they improve, we'll still catch them one of these days - even if they continue to improve their percentage.
Having said that, we may encounter a slight setback today in that we are expecting a delayed batch of additions from the Feds. In fact, everybody may be facing the same delayed adds. The Fed update schedule still baffles me a little, but it seems like everything eventually "comes out in the wash".
If you've been following this blog, you know that we have now increased our registration percentage by 1.43% this month. The next highest November percentage increase is, ironically, Maine at .36%.
It's interesting to note that the registration percentage for some states is actually going backward for the month. Going backwards can easily happen in this part of the registration cycle if you register less of your state's carriers than the number of new "UCR Universe" USDOT numbers added in your state.
I've said it before - I think FOCUS is really important. If you focus on getting better at UCR, you probably will. Conversely, if you don't focus on getting better at UCR, chances are good that you won't. You may even get worse - at least from a registration percentage standpoint.
The most important UCR best practice may be making the decision to get better at UCR.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
UCR "Wars" - The Saturday Edition - 11/21/09
Unregistered Carriers on 11/20/2009 - 1575
Unregistered Carriers on 11/21/2009 - 1557
Maine - 93.18%
Illinois - 92.69%
The plan's working pretty well so far. By my calculations, I need to take about 120 more guys off my Unregistered List to get into that rarified Maine air.
Meanwhile, we are now ahead of California by about 110 registrations.
One caveat: I think the Friday Fed updates were a little screwed up, so we may get clobbered with new carriers on Monday or Tuesday.
No matter what happens next week, it's good to look in the rear-view mirror occasionally to see from whence we've come.
On November 2 - three short weeks ago - we trailed CA by 64 registrations and Maine by 1.44%.
One other thing I'd like to see happen would be for us to register 20,000 Illinois carriers. We're currently at 19,749, so that seems do-able.
Sub-goals like this are good ... but we're nowhere near zero yet! "Getting to zero" was THE original goal of this project.
I'm willing to concede that we have accomplished a lot since then - much of it as a result of pursuing the original goal - but the original goal still stands .... and, as far as I'm concerned, the rest of it is just fun motivational stuff.
Until next week ...
Unregistered Carriers on 11/21/2009 - 1557
Maine - 93.18%
Illinois - 92.69%
The plan's working pretty well so far. By my calculations, I need to take about 120 more guys off my Unregistered List to get into that rarified Maine air.
Meanwhile, we are now ahead of California by about 110 registrations.
One caveat: I think the Friday Fed updates were a little screwed up, so we may get clobbered with new carriers on Monday or Tuesday.
No matter what happens next week, it's good to look in the rear-view mirror occasionally to see from whence we've come.
On November 2 - three short weeks ago - we trailed CA by 64 registrations and Maine by 1.44%.
One other thing I'd like to see happen would be for us to register 20,000 Illinois carriers. We're currently at 19,749, so that seems do-able.
Sub-goals like this are good ... but we're nowhere near zero yet! "Getting to zero" was THE original goal of this project.
I'm willing to concede that we have accomplished a lot since then - much of it as a result of pursuing the original goal - but the original goal still stands .... and, as far as I'm concerned, the rest of it is just fun motivational stuff.
Until next week ...
Friday, November 20, 2009
Is It True What They Say About .... Iowa???
Unregistered Carriers on 11/19/2009 - 1597
Unregistered Carriers on 11/20/2009 - 1575
Maine - 93.18%
Illinois - 92.61%
On Wednesday, one of our officers stopped an Iowa motor carrier who was not registered under UCR. He told us that he tried to register for UCR in Iowa, but Iowa told him they don't register carriers for UCR anymore and that he would have to go to the UCR Web site to register. Apparently, he called Indiana and asked Indiana to register him (presumably using Iowa's account) and Sandy & Co. were nice enough to accommodate him. This was the story we got from the carrier, anyway.
Admittedly, all this is hearsay, and if I was bound to any kind of journalistic integrity mandate - which, I'd like to point out with a certain amount of non-journalistic glee, I'm not - I would jump all over this situation and set off in heated and relentless pursuit of the facts. In other words, I would call Bruce in Iowa and see if the story checks out. But, for blogging purposes, I'm not particularly interested in the facts of this situation.
Instead, I would like to pursue the concept of a UCR State - ANY UCR State - telling people that if they want to register for UCR, they MUST go to the UCR Web site. I've thought about taking this approach myself.
On the one hand, I like the idea a lot. It's very efficient! Essentially, a State is "deflecting" all of the work back to the carrier and "wasting" almost no resources on customer service, mailings, etc. (One of my co-workers once said to me, "They HAVE to come to us. Why do you call them 'customers'"? If that's your mindset, then there's probably not much point in reading further. But I'll bet you're also the first one to complain about the long wait at the Driver's License facility!) Anyway, deflect the work - save the cash.
(Side note: Iowa doesn't collect a lot of money from UCR, so this approach makes even more sense from a resource standpoint in Iowa than it does in many other UCR States.)
On the other hand, why are we designated as UCR "base states"? And what are we getting paid to do? And what if a "carrier" has no computer or doesn't have a lot of facility with the computer. And what if, heaven forbid, the carrier doesn't even own a credit card and is not about to use e-Check or any other kind of electronic payment mechanism. What if he's used to doing business in cash? Remember, something like 70-80% of the people registering are operating 1-2 trucks. Mom and Pop. Not UPS. And we all know there's a whole bunch of "I don't like technology" people out there.
So, if you're a customer service guy like me, you look at this approach and say that it's a little long on self-service (State self-service, that is) and a little short on "user-friendly" for the carrier - especially the carrier who needs the help.
If we were a business (I know, I know, we're not), I don't think we'd be in business long taking this approach. Frankly, if the situation were reversed and I was the customer, I would resent being told such a thing. Imagine going to a restaurant, walking up to the counter with your $20 bill - yes, I'm the last of the big-time spenders - and being told that you have to go to a Web site to pay the bill. Better yet, imagine going to a restaurant and being told, "We don't actually serve food here. Call some other restaurant and have them deliver it to you. You can use the phone over there - for a dollar plus convenience fees!"
By the way, for what it's worth, I would have registered the Iowa guy if Sandy hadn't. Serve the carrier first - sort out the details later.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/20/2009 - 1575
Maine - 93.18%
Illinois - 92.61%
On Wednesday, one of our officers stopped an Iowa motor carrier who was not registered under UCR. He told us that he tried to register for UCR in Iowa, but Iowa told him they don't register carriers for UCR anymore and that he would have to go to the UCR Web site to register. Apparently, he called Indiana and asked Indiana to register him (presumably using Iowa's account) and Sandy & Co. were nice enough to accommodate him. This was the story we got from the carrier, anyway.
Admittedly, all this is hearsay, and if I was bound to any kind of journalistic integrity mandate - which, I'd like to point out with a certain amount of non-journalistic glee, I'm not - I would jump all over this situation and set off in heated and relentless pursuit of the facts. In other words, I would call Bruce in Iowa and see if the story checks out. But, for blogging purposes, I'm not particularly interested in the facts of this situation.
Instead, I would like to pursue the concept of a UCR State - ANY UCR State - telling people that if they want to register for UCR, they MUST go to the UCR Web site. I've thought about taking this approach myself.
On the one hand, I like the idea a lot. It's very efficient! Essentially, a State is "deflecting" all of the work back to the carrier and "wasting" almost no resources on customer service, mailings, etc. (One of my co-workers once said to me, "They HAVE to come to us. Why do you call them 'customers'"? If that's your mindset, then there's probably not much point in reading further. But I'll bet you're also the first one to complain about the long wait at the Driver's License facility!) Anyway, deflect the work - save the cash.
(Side note: Iowa doesn't collect a lot of money from UCR, so this approach makes even more sense from a resource standpoint in Iowa than it does in many other UCR States.)
On the other hand, why are we designated as UCR "base states"? And what are we getting paid to do? And what if a "carrier" has no computer or doesn't have a lot of facility with the computer. And what if, heaven forbid, the carrier doesn't even own a credit card and is not about to use e-Check or any other kind of electronic payment mechanism. What if he's used to doing business in cash? Remember, something like 70-80% of the people registering are operating 1-2 trucks. Mom and Pop. Not UPS. And we all know there's a whole bunch of "I don't like technology" people out there.
So, if you're a customer service guy like me, you look at this approach and say that it's a little long on self-service (State self-service, that is) and a little short on "user-friendly" for the carrier - especially the carrier who needs the help.
If we were a business (I know, I know, we're not), I don't think we'd be in business long taking this approach. Frankly, if the situation were reversed and I was the customer, I would resent being told such a thing. Imagine going to a restaurant, walking up to the counter with your $20 bill - yes, I'm the last of the big-time spenders - and being told that you have to go to a Web site to pay the bill. Better yet, imagine going to a restaurant and being told, "We don't actually serve food here. Call some other restaurant and have them deliver it to you. You can use the phone over there - for a dollar plus convenience fees!"
By the way, for what it's worth, I would have registered the Iowa guy if Sandy hadn't. Serve the carrier first - sort out the details later.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The "Burden" of Collaboration
Unregistered Carriers on 11/18/2009 - 1609
Unregistered Carriers on 11/19/2009 - 1597
Maine - 93.14%
Illinois - 92.50%
I've been thinking overnight about the prospects for collaboration .... and I'm struck by a recurring question:
What does/will it actually mean for "us" to collaborate?
First, who is "us"? If we're talking about NCSTS, we could be talking about the current officers, the Past Presidents, the Executive Committee, the States, the Industry, the Past Hospitality Suite Coordinators or the entire NCSTS membership.
Second, what will collaboration mean? Frequently, I approach the adequacy of a new piece of software in terms of, "Here's what I need it to do. Does it do that?" In this case, it's almost like we're looking at what Sharepoint does and figuring out if that type of collaboration could apply to the "new and improved" collaborative us.
In other words, we have no Grand Collaboration Plan to test the capabilities of Sharepoint against.
And I'm struck by the extent to which we don't collaborate now.
And I think we're going to have to "grow into" collaboration.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/19/2009 - 1597
Maine - 93.14%
Illinois - 92.50%
I've been thinking overnight about the prospects for collaboration .... and I'm struck by a recurring question:
What does/will it actually mean for "us" to collaborate?
First, who is "us"? If we're talking about NCSTS, we could be talking about the current officers, the Past Presidents, the Executive Committee, the States, the Industry, the Past Hospitality Suite Coordinators or the entire NCSTS membership.
Second, what will collaboration mean? Frequently, I approach the adequacy of a new piece of software in terms of, "Here's what I need it to do. Does it do that?" In this case, it's almost like we're looking at what Sharepoint does and figuring out if that type of collaboration could apply to the "new and improved" collaborative us.
In other words, we have no Grand Collaboration Plan to test the capabilities of Sharepoint against.
And I'm struck by the extent to which we don't collaborate now.
And I think we're going to have to "grow into" collaboration.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
UCR - Prospects For Collaboration
Unregistered Carriers on 11/17/2009 - 1619
Unregistered Carriers on 11/18/2009 - 1609
Maine - 93.11%
Illinois - 92.44%
As luck would have it, Maine got swamped by 4 new carriers and registered one of them, so they took a little percentage hit while we managed to move ahead a tad. We now sit at .67% behind them. The plan comes together ...(;
But that's not why I called you here ....
My agency is starting to work with Microsoft Sharepoint, a giant collaboration tool/site. The capabilities are prodigious - and can be aimed at the outside (outside of my agency) world. This leads me to the concept of external collaboration (collaboration + outside world)and begs the question, "If we (UCR Administrators, UCR Board, NCSTS) could collaborate at a common site to do common things, what kinds of common things would we choose to collaborate on?". Pithy question.
Sharepoint can handle document storage, document versioning, offshoot Web sites, blogs, discussion forums (fora? fori? forae?) and, trust me on this, all kinds of other stuff. If we can figure out something to collaborate on, I'm guessing Sharepoint can accomodate us.
Over the next couple of weeks, I'm going to work up a couple of test things and demonstrate them via Live Meeting because we don't have external Sharepoint access yet ... it costs extra $$$. But I think the agency is willing to spend the money if we can demonstrate a legitimate use. So work with me on this, people.
And try to be mindful of what the late, great, granny-glass-wearin', kite-flyin', Constitution-signin', odometer-inventin' Ben ("It's all about the Benjamins") Franklin said:
We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.
Amen, brother!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/18/2009 - 1609
Maine - 93.11%
Illinois - 92.44%
As luck would have it, Maine got swamped by 4 new carriers and registered one of them, so they took a little percentage hit while we managed to move ahead a tad. We now sit at .67% behind them. The plan comes together ...(;
But that's not why I called you here ....
My agency is starting to work with Microsoft Sharepoint, a giant collaboration tool/site. The capabilities are prodigious - and can be aimed at the outside (outside of my agency) world. This leads me to the concept of external collaboration (collaboration + outside world)and begs the question, "If we (UCR Administrators, UCR Board, NCSTS) could collaborate at a common site to do common things, what kinds of common things would we choose to collaborate on?". Pithy question.
Sharepoint can handle document storage, document versioning, offshoot Web sites, blogs, discussion forums (fora? fori? forae?) and, trust me on this, all kinds of other stuff. If we can figure out something to collaborate on, I'm guessing Sharepoint can accomodate us.
Over the next couple of weeks, I'm going to work up a couple of test things and demonstrate them via Live Meeting because we don't have external Sharepoint access yet ... it costs extra $$$. But I think the agency is willing to spend the money if we can demonstrate a legitimate use. So work with me on this, people.
And try to be mindful of what the late, great, granny-glass-wearin', kite-flyin', Constitution-signin', odometer-inventin' Ben ("It's all about the Benjamins") Franklin said:
We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.
Amen, brother!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
UCR - "The 300" (The Goal - Not The Movie)
Unregistered Carriers on 11/16/2009 - 1646
Unregistered Carriers on 11/17/2009 - 1619
Maine - 93.20%
Illinois - 92.39%
Last Thursday, I wrote that we need a net reduction of approximately 300 carriers from our unregistered list if we are going to give Maine a run for their money.
I also said that our unregistered list showed approximately 350 carriers who haven't updated their MCS-150 in at least two years and I told you that our strategy was to address that group as the potential source for many of the 300.
Today, that same number (350) stands at 267, a reduction of 83. At the same time, our unregistered list has been reduced by a net of 79. Coincidence? You decide.
We will continue to address this group in our quest for the top spot.
It's interesting to note that some of these people were early "sideways" additions - before we know what a "sideways" addition was - so they missed our early mailings and are, in some cases, just now hearing from us.
Sometimes, this process still amazes me. As Dave Barry says:
The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. Dennis Rodman is only one example.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/17/2009 - 1619
Maine - 93.20%
Illinois - 92.39%
Last Thursday, I wrote that we need a net reduction of approximately 300 carriers from our unregistered list if we are going to give Maine a run for their money.
I also said that our unregistered list showed approximately 350 carriers who haven't updated their MCS-150 in at least two years and I told you that our strategy was to address that group as the potential source for many of the 300.
Today, that same number (350) stands at 267, a reduction of 83. At the same time, our unregistered list has been reduced by a net of 79. Coincidence? You decide.
We will continue to address this group in our quest for the top spot.
It's interesting to note that some of these people were early "sideways" additions - before we know what a "sideways" addition was - so they missed our early mailings and are, in some cases, just now hearing from us.
Sometimes, this process still amazes me. As Dave Barry says:
The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. Dennis Rodman is only one example.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Why Do We Still Have 1600+ Unregistered Carriers
Unregistered Carriers on 11/14/2009 - 1626
Unregistered Carriers on 11/16/2009 - 1646
Maine - 93.17%
Illinois - 92.26%
When I can pull myself away from "War Games", I tend to reflect on why we (Illinois) still have over 1600 unregistered carriers. While I believe we have done extremely well, I still think that's a huge number. The answer, quite frankly, is that I don't really know the whole answer. As the dad said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "so there you have it!" (He also said that Windex fixes everything, but it hasn't worked on registration percentage yet.)
Here's what I DO know:
About 400 of these are USDOT numbers issued since January 1 that have not yet registered. Many of them are "in process" - in fact, 20 of them came to our attention for the first time this morning.
Some percentage of them - a small percentage, I think - are guys who are in the "boonies" and who pretty much refuse to register and probably won't get caught.
Some percentage of them - again, a small percentage, I think - are guys for whom we have bad addresses, but they appear to be active when we do our due diligence.
Some percentage of them - maybe another 10% - are really inactive carriers that we haven't deactivated yet.
Some percentage of them - probably a small percentage, at this point - are bad MCMIS records.
Believe it or not, we still make a fair number of contacts where the carriers say, "This is the first I've heard of this." Kathy maintains that this group is primarily private carriers with old numbers. Many of them end up registering, but, for the moment, they are still "in process".
Beyond that, I'm still searching for answers.
One thing we have learned is that you can register 90+% of them, but the other few percent can still be quite elusive.
No matter - I'm still trying to "get to zero"! I may not get all the way there without ultimately having a SWAT team trained on the last holdout in a small farm house somewhere in the boonies! News at 11!
I'm JUST KIDDING about that last part - hopefully, we can avoid that unpleasantry!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/16/2009 - 1646
Maine - 93.17%
Illinois - 92.26%
When I can pull myself away from "War Games", I tend to reflect on why we (Illinois) still have over 1600 unregistered carriers. While I believe we have done extremely well, I still think that's a huge number. The answer, quite frankly, is that I don't really know the whole answer. As the dad said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "so there you have it!" (He also said that Windex fixes everything, but it hasn't worked on registration percentage yet.)
Here's what I DO know:
About 400 of these are USDOT numbers issued since January 1 that have not yet registered. Many of them are "in process" - in fact, 20 of them came to our attention for the first time this morning.
Some percentage of them - a small percentage, I think - are guys who are in the "boonies" and who pretty much refuse to register and probably won't get caught.
Some percentage of them - again, a small percentage, I think - are guys for whom we have bad addresses, but they appear to be active when we do our due diligence.
Some percentage of them - maybe another 10% - are really inactive carriers that we haven't deactivated yet.
Some percentage of them - probably a small percentage, at this point - are bad MCMIS records.
Believe it or not, we still make a fair number of contacts where the carriers say, "This is the first I've heard of this." Kathy maintains that this group is primarily private carriers with old numbers. Many of them end up registering, but, for the moment, they are still "in process".
Beyond that, I'm still searching for answers.
One thing we have learned is that you can register 90+% of them, but the other few percent can still be quite elusive.
No matter - I'm still trying to "get to zero"! I may not get all the way there without ultimately having a SWAT team trained on the last holdout in a small farm house somewhere in the boonies! News at 11!
I'm JUST KIDDING about that last part - hopefully, we can avoid that unpleasantry!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
UCR "Wars" - Saturday Edition
Unregistered Carriers on 11/13/2009 - 1678
Unregistered Carriers on 11/14/2009 - 1626
Maine - 93.10%
Illinois - 92.35%
From the movie "Patton"
--------------------------
Capt. Jenson: They haven't spotted our positions yet.
Gen. Patton: They will get some education in about 10 seconds when they get a dose of our artillery fire.
Just as General Patton waged a battle without letting the other side know until the last few seconds, I am stealthily "sneaking up" on Maine. With any luck, I'll be "in position" in a couple of weeks.
We've gone from a deficit of 1.25% to a deficit of .75% in three days(although I happen to think we will get clobbered with a bunch of new carriers after the weekend updates, which will increase the deficit).
Bill Leonard tried to let the cat out of the bag at the Board meeting last Thursday, but nobody even knew what the heck he was talking about, which can only be attributed to my masterful tactical preparation.
Things are also going well on the California "front". We lead them by about 60 registrations, although that may also change after the weekend updates.
Have a great rest of the weekend! And keep your heads down!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/14/2009 - 1626
Maine - 93.10%
Illinois - 92.35%
From the movie "Patton"
--------------------------
Capt. Jenson: They haven't spotted our positions yet.
Gen. Patton: They will get some education in about 10 seconds when they get a dose of our artillery fire.
Just as General Patton waged a battle without letting the other side know until the last few seconds, I am stealthily "sneaking up" on Maine. With any luck, I'll be "in position" in a couple of weeks.
We've gone from a deficit of 1.25% to a deficit of .75% in three days(although I happen to think we will get clobbered with a bunch of new carriers after the weekend updates, which will increase the deficit).
Bill Leonard tried to let the cat out of the bag at the Board meeting last Thursday, but nobody even knew what the heck he was talking about, which can only be attributed to my masterful tactical preparation.
Things are also going well on the California "front". We lead them by about 60 registrations, although that may also change after the weekend updates.
Have a great rest of the weekend! And keep your heads down!
Friday, November 13, 2009
UCR "Renewal" - What's Your Approach?
Unregistered Carriers on 11/12/2009 - 1709
Unregistered Carriers on 11/13/2009 - 1678
Maine - 93.10%
Illinois - 92.11%
I have given considerable thought to 2010 UCR "Renewal".
I use quotation marks because the very word "renewal" already suggests a particular approach to the task - send a UCR form/letter/postcard/email to everybody who registered for UCR in 2009. But that's only one approach - and it may not be the best approach for you and your state.
Let's suppose that you are going to do a "renewal" as I have defined it.
We can say categorically that you will reach MANY of the people who registered in 2009.
You will also, however, reach some people who are no longer in business or who no longer need to do UCR.
You will NOT reach those who registered in 2009 but whose address is changed.
Some of the people, some of the time.....
Other people you will not reach will be:
1) MCMIS carriers who are listed as active, interstate carriers but who have not had an inspection, crash, MCS-150 update or UCR registration in the last year
2) UCR Universe carriers who did not register in 2009
Some of these carriers might be relatively high-dollar carriers.
UCR registration is a trade-off. You can try to reach MORE carriers and endure more returns, more rejects, etc. or you can concentrate on a higher-probability population (those who registered in 2009, for example) and increase the likelihood that things will go more smoothly.
As a practical matter, I would take a hard look at how much money I collected in 2009 from the population I'm soliciting in 2010. The further I was below my cap, the more I would be inclined to cast a wider net. I'd rather collect more money and have to deal with more bad addresses, out of business carriers, etc. than collect less money and have a "neater" renewal season. But that's just me. "Neatness" might count a whole lot more for you than cash. Your call.
Have a great weekend! Keep looking over your shoulder, Maine! :)
Unregistered Carriers on 11/13/2009 - 1678
Maine - 93.10%
Illinois - 92.11%
I have given considerable thought to 2010 UCR "Renewal".
I use quotation marks because the very word "renewal" already suggests a particular approach to the task - send a UCR form/letter/postcard/email to everybody who registered for UCR in 2009. But that's only one approach - and it may not be the best approach for you and your state.
Let's suppose that you are going to do a "renewal" as I have defined it.
We can say categorically that you will reach MANY of the people who registered in 2009.
You will also, however, reach some people who are no longer in business or who no longer need to do UCR.
You will NOT reach those who registered in 2009 but whose address is changed.
Some of the people, some of the time.....
Other people you will not reach will be:
1) MCMIS carriers who are listed as active, interstate carriers but who have not had an inspection, crash, MCS-150 update or UCR registration in the last year
2) UCR Universe carriers who did not register in 2009
Some of these carriers might be relatively high-dollar carriers.
UCR registration is a trade-off. You can try to reach MORE carriers and endure more returns, more rejects, etc. or you can concentrate on a higher-probability population (those who registered in 2009, for example) and increase the likelihood that things will go more smoothly.
As a practical matter, I would take a hard look at how much money I collected in 2009 from the population I'm soliciting in 2010. The further I was below my cap, the more I would be inclined to cast a wider net. I'd rather collect more money and have to deal with more bad addresses, out of business carriers, etc. than collect less money and have a "neater" renewal season. But that's just me. "Neatness" might count a whole lot more for you than cash. Your call.
Have a great weekend! Keep looking over your shoulder, Maine! :)
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Clawing Our Way To The UCR Crown - Part 2
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - 1694
Unregistered Carriers on 11/12/2009 - 1709
Okay, so where was I ...? Oh yeah, our strategy for catching up with Maine, which I articulated in the last post as follows:
We're going to try to reduce our unregistered list as much as possible.
Here's my thinking, oversimplified for this illustration:
We need a net reduction of approximately 300 carriers from our unregistered list.
In looking at our unregistered list, we have approximately 350 carriers who haven't updated their MCS-150 in at least two years. Some MCS-150 updates go all the way back to the early part of the millenium. Chances are good that these guys aren't even in business any longer.
Our goal will be to either register or deactivate these 350 carriers over the next three weeks.
We have a procedure we follow for deactivation, depending on whether the carrier is private or for-hire, incorporated or not, intrastate or not, etc. Our due diligence seems to be working because we haven't had any complaints yet regarding "premature deactivation". {:
And while I'm on this subject, I'd like to ask you a question. Which of these three scenarios is most beneficial to improving our registration percentage:
1) registering a carrier who is not on the unregistered list?
2) registering a carrier who IS on the unregistered list?
3) deactivating a carrier on the unregistered list?
In order, the most benefit goes to 2, 3 and 1 respectively. If you're remotely interested in the particular amount of benefit each provides, I'll be happy to share my "research" with you.
With 11 work days left in November, we could catch Maine by the end of the month ... if we reduce our unregistered list by a NET of 20-25 records per day.
So, now you know my strategy! And I have a new mantra, too. With apologies to the late Johnny Cochrane, here it is:
"If you don't registrate ... you must de-activate."
Unregistered Carriers on 11/12/2009 - 1709
Okay, so where was I ...? Oh yeah, our strategy for catching up with Maine, which I articulated in the last post as follows:
We're going to try to reduce our unregistered list as much as possible.
Here's my thinking, oversimplified for this illustration:
We need a net reduction of approximately 300 carriers from our unregistered list.
In looking at our unregistered list, we have approximately 350 carriers who haven't updated their MCS-150 in at least two years. Some MCS-150 updates go all the way back to the early part of the millenium. Chances are good that these guys aren't even in business any longer.
Our goal will be to either register or deactivate these 350 carriers over the next three weeks.
We have a procedure we follow for deactivation, depending on whether the carrier is private or for-hire, incorporated or not, intrastate or not, etc. Our due diligence seems to be working because we haven't had any complaints yet regarding "premature deactivation". {:
And while I'm on this subject, I'd like to ask you a question. Which of these three scenarios is most beneficial to improving our registration percentage:
1) registering a carrier who is not on the unregistered list?
2) registering a carrier who IS on the unregistered list?
3) deactivating a carrier on the unregistered list?
In order, the most benefit goes to 2, 3 and 1 respectively. If you're remotely interested in the particular amount of benefit each provides, I'll be happy to share my "research" with you.
With 11 work days left in November, we could catch Maine by the end of the month ... if we reduce our unregistered list by a NET of 20-25 records per day.
So, now you know my strategy! And I have a new mantra, too. With apologies to the late Johnny Cochrane, here it is:
"If you don't registrate ... you must de-activate."
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Clawing Our Way To The UCR Crown - Part 1
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - 1694
In yesterday's "bonus" post (2nd post in the same day), I told you that I would reveal my strategy for catching Maine in this post. In the meantime, a funny thing has happened.
You'll recall that yesterday's percentages were 93% and 91.75% respectively. Well, this morning's percentages are 92.88% and 92.06%!
Yes, as fate would have it, Maine went backwards on the first day of the "competition"! How could that happen? Well, yesterday's percentage for Maine was based on having registered 2,818 carriers and having 212 unregistered. Today's percentage is based on Maine having registered 2,819 carriers and having 216 carriers unregistered.
In other words, Maine registered one carrier --- but their number of unregistered carriers went up by four!
Meanwhile, our numbers for yesterday and today were 19,539/1,757 and 19,558/1,694 respectively.
Notice that our unregistered carriers number went down by 63! This was a direct result of implementing our new strategy. And what is that strategy? Here it is: We're going to work really hard to reduce our unregistered carrier number.
"What???", you ask incredulously. "Yes, that's correct.", I say calmly and with just a hint of reassurance. You retort, somewhat imdignantly, "Tell me how that's different than what you're supposed to have been doing all along." "I will if you'll just calm down." I say soothingly. "But you'll have to wait until tomorrow."
"Happy Veteran's Day" to all of my fellow veterans. Thank you for putting your lives on the line to protect this great country of ours!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - 1694
In yesterday's "bonus" post (2nd post in the same day), I told you that I would reveal my strategy for catching Maine in this post. In the meantime, a funny thing has happened.
You'll recall that yesterday's percentages were 93% and 91.75% respectively. Well, this morning's percentages are 92.88% and 92.06%!
Yes, as fate would have it, Maine went backwards on the first day of the "competition"! How could that happen? Well, yesterday's percentage for Maine was based on having registered 2,818 carriers and having 212 unregistered. Today's percentage is based on Maine having registered 2,819 carriers and having 216 carriers unregistered.
In other words, Maine registered one carrier --- but their number of unregistered carriers went up by four!
Meanwhile, our numbers for yesterday and today were 19,539/1,757 and 19,558/1,694 respectively.
Notice that our unregistered carriers number went down by 63! This was a direct result of implementing our new strategy. And what is that strategy? Here it is: We're going to work really hard to reduce our unregistered carrier number.
"What???", you ask incredulously. "Yes, that's correct.", I say calmly and with just a hint of reassurance. You retort, somewhat imdignantly, "Tell me how that's different than what you're supposed to have been doing all along." "I will if you'll just calm down." I say soothingly. "But you'll have to wait until tomorrow."
"Happy Veteran's Day" to all of my fellow veterans. Thank you for putting your lives on the line to protect this great country of ours!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Reign In Maine Falls Mainly Due To My Insane Game!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - XXXX
OK, Maine, I'm coming after you. You probably don't know (or care), but I'm coming after you. You have held on to the top registration percentage long enough. It's time for the title to move out here to the Midwest.
Let's review: as of this morning (11/10), Maine is sitting right at 93% and I'm at 91.75%.
What, exactly, does this challenge entail? Let me put it to you this way. With 19,539 carriers registered, my unregistered population would have to be 1,470 - not 1,757 - to be at 93%. That's 287 less unregistered carriers than I have as of this morning. And that's about how much - NET - that I have to reduce my list by in order to be in the running! It's a tall order!
Can we do it? I don't know. But I've got a plan. Tune in tomorrow - or whenever I post again because tomorrow's a holiday - to find out what that plan is.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - XXXX
OK, Maine, I'm coming after you. You probably don't know (or care), but I'm coming after you. You have held on to the top registration percentage long enough. It's time for the title to move out here to the Midwest.
Let's review: as of this morning (11/10), Maine is sitting right at 93% and I'm at 91.75%.
What, exactly, does this challenge entail? Let me put it to you this way. With 19,539 carriers registered, my unregistered population would have to be 1,470 - not 1,757 - to be at 93%. That's 287 less unregistered carriers than I have as of this morning. And that's about how much - NET - that I have to reduce my list by in order to be in the running! It's a tall order!
Can we do it? I don't know. But I've got a plan. Tune in tomorrow - or whenever I post again because tomorrow's a holiday - to find out what that plan is.
How Much Is Your Next $100,000 (Of UCR Revenue) Worth To You?
Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
You know you've been blogging a while when you can't remember if you've written about a topic or not. You know you're lazy if you don't feel like going back through all of your previous posts to find out. And, since the chances are good that not many people will read this blog anyway, you know that I'm just going to "live on the edge" and tell you what's on my mind - and, if it sounds familiar, I'll chalk it up as a "refresher course".
With that grandiose introduction, I'd like to talk to you (again?) about a topic that is near and dear to my heart:
How much is your next $100,000 (of UCR revenue) worth to you?
(Don't get hung up on $100,000 - the number could be $250,000, 500,000 or even $1,000,000.)
In the midst of all the hoopla about the under-collection of UCR revenue, I have asked quite a few people, "How much money would you (or your boss or your agency) spend if you knew that, as a result of spending that money, you would collect an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue?" Again, we could just as well be talking about an additional $200,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 - you pick the number.
Quite honestly, the answers to this question have kind of shocked me... but not really. They fall into several categories - none of them seemingly very good from a UCR program standpoint.
1) "I don't understand the question." (This one troubles me a little!)
2) "I don't know - I'd have to think about it."
3) "I don't know - I'd have to ask my boss."
4) "$0. I can't spend any money at all - no budget appropriation for it."
5) "Is the $100,000 guaranteed?"
6) "Probably not more than $249. Above that, I have to go through 'hell and high water' procurement scrutiny.)
I understand every one of these answers - I just don't like the sound of them very much.
Contrast that question with this question:
"How much money did you spend this year to collect the amount of UCR revenue you collected?"
With a little thought, we can all probably take a shot at that question. In other words, we can calculate how much we have spent per $100,000 of revenue we've already generated ... it's that next $100,000 of revenue that gets tricky.
I could ask the question a different way - "Would you be willing to spend $15,000 every year to virtually guarantee an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue every year?"
From everything I've gathered anecdotally, the answer would probably be "No, thanks." I can then envision the person who answered the question walking off, mumbling, "Would I spend $15,000? Where am I going to get that kind of money? I'm a recipient state, for crying out loud!"
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
You know you've been blogging a while when you can't remember if you've written about a topic or not. You know you're lazy if you don't feel like going back through all of your previous posts to find out. And, since the chances are good that not many people will read this blog anyway, you know that I'm just going to "live on the edge" and tell you what's on my mind - and, if it sounds familiar, I'll chalk it up as a "refresher course".
With that grandiose introduction, I'd like to talk to you (again?) about a topic that is near and dear to my heart:
How much is your next $100,000 (of UCR revenue) worth to you?
(Don't get hung up on $100,000 - the number could be $250,000, 500,000 or even $1,000,000.)
In the midst of all the hoopla about the under-collection of UCR revenue, I have asked quite a few people, "How much money would you (or your boss or your agency) spend if you knew that, as a result of spending that money, you would collect an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue?" Again, we could just as well be talking about an additional $200,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 - you pick the number.
Quite honestly, the answers to this question have kind of shocked me... but not really. They fall into several categories - none of them seemingly very good from a UCR program standpoint.
1) "I don't understand the question." (This one troubles me a little!)
2) "I don't know - I'd have to think about it."
3) "I don't know - I'd have to ask my boss."
4) "$0. I can't spend any money at all - no budget appropriation for it."
5) "Is the $100,000 guaranteed?"
6) "Probably not more than $249. Above that, I have to go through 'hell and high water' procurement scrutiny.)
I understand every one of these answers - I just don't like the sound of them very much.
Contrast that question with this question:
"How much money did you spend this year to collect the amount of UCR revenue you collected?"
With a little thought, we can all probably take a shot at that question. In other words, we can calculate how much we have spent per $100,000 of revenue we've already generated ... it's that next $100,000 of revenue that gets tricky.
I could ask the question a different way - "Would you be willing to spend $15,000 every year to virtually guarantee an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue every year?"
From everything I've gathered anecdotally, the answer would probably be "No, thanks." I can then envision the person who answered the question walking off, mumbling, "Would I spend $15,000? Where am I going to get that kind of money? I'm a recipient state, for crying out loud!"
Monday, November 9, 2009
UCR Reconciliation - Wherefore Art Thou?
Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762
Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778
Today, I would like to put on my UCR Systems Committee Chairperson hat and point out what I perceive to be a weakness in the overall UCR registration / data exchange system. Please notice that I didn't say a "problem", but rather a "weakness".
Specifically, we have no viable way to reconcile the registration data that are (is?) flowing through our system. It's the kind of thing an auditor would look at and say, "How do you know for sure ...". In this case, the question would be, "How do you know for sure that the data is moving through the system and arriving where it's supposed to arrive accurately?" We're not saying that we KNOW there's a problem. We're just asking how we know that we DON'T have a problem? And the answer is, we don't know that.
Perhaps a financial analogy would be helpful. Any of us who manage sections where money is processed knows that at the end of a processing session, one needs to add up the transactions done, compare the payment instruments processed against the transactions processed and make sure the totals and the details of each match.
We don't have the same kind of reconciliation process with UCR data.
Data gets input and "shipped off", but we don't have any kind of "reconciliation report" to show us that the data traveled and landed appropriately. Admittedly, the data travels a somewhat complicated path. Ten States update both the Feds and Iteris ... on different schedules. The Feds (and Volpe) have their own internal schedule that involves not only MCMIS, but L&I, Safestat, SAFER, UCR and who knows what other systems. Eventually, the data stops traveling ... and hopefully lands where it's supposed to land.
When all is said and done, however, nowhere in the process can we say, "OK, I've got 'X' here and 'X' here. It balances! We're good!" And that strikes me as a weakness.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778
Today, I would like to put on my UCR Systems Committee Chairperson hat and point out what I perceive to be a weakness in the overall UCR registration / data exchange system. Please notice that I didn't say a "problem", but rather a "weakness".
Specifically, we have no viable way to reconcile the registration data that are (is?) flowing through our system. It's the kind of thing an auditor would look at and say, "How do you know for sure ...". In this case, the question would be, "How do you know for sure that the data is moving through the system and arriving where it's supposed to arrive accurately?" We're not saying that we KNOW there's a problem. We're just asking how we know that we DON'T have a problem? And the answer is, we don't know that.
Perhaps a financial analogy would be helpful. Any of us who manage sections where money is processed knows that at the end of a processing session, one needs to add up the transactions done, compare the payment instruments processed against the transactions processed and make sure the totals and the details of each match.
We don't have the same kind of reconciliation process with UCR data.
Data gets input and "shipped off", but we don't have any kind of "reconciliation report" to show us that the data traveled and landed appropriately. Admittedly, the data travels a somewhat complicated path. Ten States update both the Feds and Iteris ... on different schedules. The Feds (and Volpe) have their own internal schedule that involves not only MCMIS, but L&I, Safestat, SAFER, UCR and who knows what other systems. Eventually, the data stops traveling ... and hopefully lands where it's supposed to land.
When all is said and done, however, nowhere in the process can we say, "OK, I've got 'X' here and 'X' here. It balances! We're good!" And that strikes me as a weakness.
Friday, November 6, 2009
It's Official - At Least For Today!!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764
Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762
This morning - according to the Iteris reports - we are 4 registrations ahead of our friends in California. We have registered 19,478 Illinois carriers while California has registered 19,474 California carriers.
On July 1, we were 2,053 registrations behind them.
Registering nearly 20,000 of our own carriers is probably a much bigger feat for us than it is for California because our pool of carriers is much smaller. In order for us to hit that kind of number, our registration percentage also has to be very high - which, at 91.71%, it is.
As I said to Scott Morris yesterday, there's a difference between focusing on something and just showing up. In fact, of all the "Best Practices", focus may be the most important "Best Practice" of all. Focus drives activity AND innovation - how can we get more out of what we're doing?
To those States who might say, "We must be busier than you are because we don't have time to focus on UCR", I would say, "I doubt it". Feel free to call my staff and ask them yourself. In fact, Kathy said to me yesterday, "I can't even imagine what our lives would be like if we were a Recipient State"! (I can - but I don't want to scare her unnecessarily.)
And now, having caught California, we just have one more stop - Maine. Not for the "lobstuh" - although that would be great - but for the highest UCR registration percentage. Can we overcome a 1.23% deficit? As I've written in other posts, I doubt that it's mathematically possible - especially given the time frame. But then, I didn't think we could catch California either!
Fasten your seat belt, Kath'!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762
This morning - according to the Iteris reports - we are 4 registrations ahead of our friends in California. We have registered 19,478 Illinois carriers while California has registered 19,474 California carriers.
On July 1, we were 2,053 registrations behind them.
Registering nearly 20,000 of our own carriers is probably a much bigger feat for us than it is for California because our pool of carriers is much smaller. In order for us to hit that kind of number, our registration percentage also has to be very high - which, at 91.71%, it is.
As I said to Scott Morris yesterday, there's a difference between focusing on something and just showing up. In fact, of all the "Best Practices", focus may be the most important "Best Practice" of all. Focus drives activity AND innovation - how can we get more out of what we're doing?
To those States who might say, "We must be busier than you are because we don't have time to focus on UCR", I would say, "I doubt it". Feel free to call my staff and ask them yourself. In fact, Kathy said to me yesterday, "I can't even imagine what our lives would be like if we were a Recipient State"! (I can - but I don't want to scare her unnecessarily.)
And now, having caught California, we just have one more stop - Maine. Not for the "lobstuh" - although that would be great - but for the highest UCR registration percentage. Can we overcome a 1.23% deficit? As I've written in other posts, I doubt that it's mathematically possible - especially given the time frame. But then, I didn't think we could catch California either!
Fasten your seat belt, Kath'!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
UCR Is A Terrific Program!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798
Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764
I'm getting a little tired of everybody bashing UCR. I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating:
We have done a remarkable job implementing UCR.
We have never received a dime of funding for UCR implementation or administration!
We collate and distribute electronic enforcement information from ten different systems around the country in an extremely effective and timely manner.
We register more carriers than IRP or IFTA.
We have registered just under 75% of the assumed universe of carriers - or at least the assumed universe of carrier "records". This percentage was, at one time, cited by certain industry representatives in public meetings as the threshold number for "a good faith effort" by States, but has now apparently come to represent the States "not doing nearly enough".
I could go on ... but you get the point.
It doesn't hurt to look over our shoulders every once in a while to see how far we've come. And we're only going to get better!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764
I'm getting a little tired of everybody bashing UCR. I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating:
We have done a remarkable job implementing UCR.
We have never received a dime of funding for UCR implementation or administration!
We collate and distribute electronic enforcement information from ten different systems around the country in an extremely effective and timely manner.
We register more carriers than IRP or IFTA.
We have registered just under 75% of the assumed universe of carriers - or at least the assumed universe of carrier "records". This percentage was, at one time, cited by certain industry representatives in public meetings as the threshold number for "a good faith effort" by States, but has now apparently come to represent the States "not doing nearly enough".
I could go on ... but you get the point.
It doesn't hurt to look over our shoulders every once in a while to see how far we've come. And we're only going to get better!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What's Up With California and UCR?
Unregistered Carriers on 10/30/2009 - 1821
Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798
I have been interested to read about California's "disenchantment" with the UCR program. I've been even more interested to read about their proposed solutions. But I've been the most interested - and I'm not trying to cast aspersions here - that the criticisms have come from a State that seems to be "part of the problem".
In pursuit of that last point:
As of this morning, California has registered 66.42% of their carriers during the fourteen months of 2009 UCR Registration.
If my recollection serves me correctly: 1) that's a below-average percentage for a UCR participating state, 2) it's only a couple of points higher than a couple of the non-participating states they criticize, and 3) it's 15-20% below many states that do IRP in the same agency as UCR.
In fact, according to the Feds, there are still nearly 10,000 (9,828 to be exact) "active interstate carriers that have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the last year" domiciled in California that have yet to complete 2009 UCR registration.
I know, I know, ..... it's probably 9,828 bad MCMIS records. But it's a heck of a lot more than any of the rest of us have. And it is, after all, one-third of the "alleged" motor carrier population in California.
In defense of California, they have collected revenues over and above their cap. They are, in fact, a Donor state. We don't have enough of those. But, in a state with 30,000 carriers, that's not exactly a colossal feat. And it certainly masks several more important issues.
Look ..... if we had a different law, different rules, and different definitions, UCR would, indeed, be a different program.
If California had their way, UCR would apparently look an awful lot more like IRP. But, if the Feds have their way (PRISM, mandatory DOT numbers, safety for license plates, etc.), IRP might start to take on more of a UCR look - except, of course, for that pesky 26K weight limit and that definition of "interstate carrier" and no paper credential and ... oh, heck with it!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798
I have been interested to read about California's "disenchantment" with the UCR program. I've been even more interested to read about their proposed solutions. But I've been the most interested - and I'm not trying to cast aspersions here - that the criticisms have come from a State that seems to be "part of the problem".
In pursuit of that last point:
As of this morning, California has registered 66.42% of their carriers during the fourteen months of 2009 UCR Registration.
If my recollection serves me correctly: 1) that's a below-average percentage for a UCR participating state, 2) it's only a couple of points higher than a couple of the non-participating states they criticize, and 3) it's 15-20% below many states that do IRP in the same agency as UCR.
In fact, according to the Feds, there are still nearly 10,000 (9,828 to be exact) "active interstate carriers that have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the last year" domiciled in California that have yet to complete 2009 UCR registration.
I know, I know, ..... it's probably 9,828 bad MCMIS records. But it's a heck of a lot more than any of the rest of us have. And it is, after all, one-third of the "alleged" motor carrier population in California.
In defense of California, they have collected revenues over and above their cap. They are, in fact, a Donor state. We don't have enough of those. But, in a state with 30,000 carriers, that's not exactly a colossal feat. And it certainly masks several more important issues.
Look ..... if we had a different law, different rules, and different definitions, UCR would, indeed, be a different program.
If California had their way, UCR would apparently look an awful lot more like IRP. But, if the Feds have their way (PRISM, mandatory DOT numbers, safety for license plates, etc.), IRP might start to take on more of a UCR look - except, of course, for that pesky 26K weight limit and that definition of "interstate carrier" and no paper credential and ... oh, heck with it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)