2318

VETOES

bill, will achieve it.

The Department of Transportation has made a
preliminary study of the comparative efficiency of fixed
versus portable scale locations, based upon the actual
results obtained from the three fixed stations (each with
two enforcement units) and the thirteen portable stations
operated during the last half of 1975. The study
indicates that the portable locations are more efficient
than the fixed ones. For example:

(1)    In terms of arrests per vehicle checked, at
the fixed stations, 132,114 vehicles were checked,
resulting in 3,501 arrests, or one arrest for each 37.7
vehicles checked. At the portable stations, 24,758
vehicles were checked, resulting in 5,295 arrests, or one
arrest for each 4.67 vehicles checked. Thus, in terms of
vehicles checked, the portable stations produced eight
times as many arrests as the fixed ones.

(2)    In terms of arrests per vehicle weighed,
similar results occurred. At the fixed locations, 61% of
the vehicles checked were weighed, but of the 80,361
vehicles weighed, there were only 930 arrests for
overweight, or just over one percent of the vehicles
weighed. At the portable locations, only 17% of the
vehicles checked were weighed, yet of the 4,210 vehicles
weighed, there were 1,927 arrests for overweight, or 45%.

(3)    In terms of cost efficiency, approximately
one-half of the $1.3 million budget for the Truck Weight
Enforcement Division was expended for the three fixed
locations, the other half going for the thirteen portable
units. Considering that each of the three fixed stations
has two enforcement units, the State gets more than twice
the coverage (and significantly more arrests) per dollar
with portable units than with fixed ones.

I have also received information from the State
Police Truck Height Enforcement Division indicating that
these figures do not tell the whole story, and that
maximum efficiency would be achieved by the placement of
additional fixed stations on certain Interstate and other
heavily travelled highways.

These conflicting indications point up the need to
give further consideration to where our investment in
truck weight enforcement ought to be. This need was also
recognized by the Senate Committee on Budget and Taxation
and the House Committee on Appropriations as evidenced by
the Report of the Joint Chairmen issued on April 12,
1976. That Report recommended that the whole program of
truck weight enforcement be considered for evaluation
prior to the 1977 session of the General Assembly, "with
the objective of evaluating its effectiveness and