Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental 

Roadway Data Elements to Support the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program

FHWA-SA-11-40 June 2011

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

i 

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes 

to ensure continuous quality improvement. 
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

ii 

Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank the following individuals who served as members on the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety Technical Working Group for this 

effort. Their contributions helped shape the guidance that States will be receiving on the 

fundamental roadway safety data elements to support their Highway Safety Improvement 

Programs. 

Office of Safety Technical Working Group 

Robert Pollack, FHWA Office of Safety 

Jeff Miller, FHWA Office of Safety 

Mike Griffith, FHWA Office of Safety 

Erin Kenley, FHWA Office of Safety 

Ed Rice, FHWA Office of Safety 

Lincoln Cobb, FHWA Office of Safety Research and Development 

Ray Krammes, FHWA Office of Safety Research and Development 

Joe Hausman, FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information 

Greg Schertz, FHWA Federal Lands 

Christine Thorkildsen, FHWA New York Division 

Greg Piland, FHWA Illinois Division 

Jerry Roche, FHWA Iowa Division 

David Harkey, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center 

Forrest Council, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center 
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

iii 

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-11-40 

2. Government Accession 

No. 

3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

5. Report Date 

June 2011 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Nancy Lefler, Rebecca Fiedler, Hugh McGee, Robert Pollack, and Jeff Miller 

8. Performing Organization Report 

No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) 

8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700 

Vienna, VA 22182-2626 

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-05-D-00024 (VHB) 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period 

Final Report, April 2010 - June 2011 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FHWA 

15. Supplementary Notes 

The contract manager for this project was Robert Pollack. 

16. Abstract 

Quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, and safety of 

roadways. Using roadway and traffic data together with crash data can help agencies to make decisions that are 

fiscally responsible and to improve the safety of the roadways for all users. The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Office of Safety has established a fundamental set of roadway and traffic data elements that States should be 

collecting to support the activities conducted under their Highway Safety Improvement Programs (FDE/HSIP). The 

objective of this effort was to conduct a market analysis of the potential cost to States in developing a statewide 

location referencing system and collecting the FDE/HSIP in all public roadways. This effort also investigated 

potential methodologies that could be applied to estimate the benefits in terms of safety of collecting this additional 

roadway information. This report provides the results of this effort and provides suggestions for future research. 

17. Key Words: 

Safety data, economic analysis, HSIP, roadway 

data, traffic data, intersections, ramps 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

41 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized 
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

iv 
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

v 

Acronyms

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EMS Emergency Medical Services 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FDE/HSIP Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System 

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 

HSM Highway Safety Manual 

MAIS Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale 

MIRE Model Inventory of Roadway Elements 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

OHPI Office of Highway Policy Information 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

SAFETEA-LU The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

TRB SHRP 2 Transportation Research Board Strategic Highway Research Program 2 

TWG Technical Working Group 

U.S. United States 

USC United States Code 

	 	
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

vi 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 4

Future Research ....................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Use of Safety Data in the HSIP ............................................................................................... 8

Model Inventory of Roadway Elements .................................................................................. 9

Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP (FDE/HSIP) ....................................................................... 9

Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 13

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 14

Overview ................................................................................................................................ 14

Data Collection Costs ............................................................................................................ 15

Benefits .................................................................................................................................. 16

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 20

Benefits .................................................................................................................................. 21

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 24

References ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A: Literature Matrix ..................................................................................................... 29
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

vii 

Table of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Average Data Collection Costs in Addition to HPMS Requirements ......... 4

Table 2. Summary of Analysis for Average State .......................................................................... 6

Table 3. FDE/HSIP Elements. ...................................................................................................... 11

Table 4. Breakdown of Roadway Ownership. .............................................................................. 18

Table 5. Summary of Average Data Collection Costs in Addition to HPMS Requirements. ...... 21

Table 6. Summary Average Annual Cost and Needed Benefit for Scenario 1. ............................ 23

Table 7. Summary Average Annual Cost and Needed Benefit for Scenario 2. ............................ 24

Table 8. Summary of Market Analysis for Average State. ........................................................... 26
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

 1 

Executive Summary

Quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, 

operation, and safety of roadways. By incorporating roadway and traffic data into safety 

analysis procedures, States can better identify safety problems and prescribe solutions to 

support their Highway Safety Improvement Programs (HSIP) and implement their 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP). Furthermore, a new generation of safety 

analysis tools and methods are being developed to help identify safety issues and provide 

recommendations for improvements. These safety analysis tools, such as the Highway 

Safety Manual (HSM) and related SafetyAnalyst and Interactive Highway Safety Design 

Model (IHSDM) software, all require quality roadway, traffic, and crash data to achieve 

the most accurate results. Using roadway and traffic data together with crash data can 

help agencies to make decisions that are fiscally responsible and to improve the safety of 

the roadways for all users. 

While HSIP guidance provides information on how safety data should be used, there is 

no additional detail on the specific data elements that State and local agencies should be 

collecting, maintaining, and using to support their HSIPs and SHSPs. In response to this 

gap, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) held a series of information gathering 

sessions in 2009 and 2010 and convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) from 2010 

through 2011 to determine a minimum set of roadway and traffic data elements that 

States should be collecting; what data States are capable of collecting given the current 

economic environment; and the importance of using roadway and traffic data to support 

the States’ HSIPs. 

States should have a common statewide location referencing system, such as a 

geographic information system (GIS) or a linear referencing system, on all public roads. 

These systems will enable States to identify high crash locations on all their public roads. 

As States expand their inventories, these common statewide systems will enable States to 

link these locations with additional data systems, such as roadway and traffic data. 

States should also be collecting a set of minimum roadway and traffic data elements that 

are fundamental to support their HSIPs. This set of elements is herein referred to as the 

Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP (FDE/HSIP). 

The FDE/HSIP are based on the minimum required elements needed to use enhanced 

safety analysis tools and methods, including the HSM and related software 

SafetyAnalyst. They are a subset of the Model Inventory Roadway Elements (MIRE) 

and duplicate many of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) full extent 

elements that States are already required to collect (1). These FDE/HSIP elements 

include segment, intersection, and ramp data elements and were determined to be the 
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

 2 

basic set of data elements an agency would need to conduct enhanced safety analysis to 

support States’ HSIPs. 

While the FDE/HSIP were selected in part based on the basic data requirements of 

existing tools such as such as the HSM and related SafetyAnalyst, they are not exclusive 

to these tools. The FHWA recognizes that many States are developing analysis tools inhouse that will help to support their HSIPs. The FDE/HSIP are a basic set of elements an 

agency would need to conduct effective, enhanced safety analysis independent of the 

specific analysis tools used or methods applied. All States should be moving towards 

using analysis tools and having the FDE/HSIP available to utilize these tools, regardless 

of whether they are the tools developed through Federal efforts or they are developed inhouse. 

The objective of this effort was to conduct a market analysis of the potential cost to States 

in developing a statewide location referencing system and collecting the FDE/HSIP on all 

public roadways. The primary theory is that collecting additional roadway and traffic 

data and integrating those data into the safety analysis process will improve an agency’s 

ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving 

safety. This effort also investigated potential methodologies that could be applied to 

estimate the benefits in terms of safety of collecting this additional roadway information. 

A literature review was conducted to identify resources to help develop a methodology 

for analysis of the cost and benefits of collecting roadway data to improve highway 

safety. The literature review showed there were no established methodologies to estimate 

the benefit of collecting roadway data elements for safety. An alternate approach was 

developed to conduct the market analysis. The costs for data collection were gathered 

from several vendors and one State department of transportation (DOT) that had been 

investigating a similar effort. The numbers of fatalities and injuries that would need to be 

reduced in order to exceed the costs (for a 1:1 and 2:1 ratio) were estimated to determine 

the benefits. That is, this analysis identified the benefit required to obtain cost 

effectiveness. 

The cost estimations developed for this analysis reflect the additional costs that States 

would incur based on what is not already being collected through HPMS or not already 

being collected through other efforts. At the time of this analysis, the FHWA did not 

know the extent of data collection practices for all States beyond HPMS requirements. In 

order to accommodate a range of data collection practices among the States, the 

methodology for the analysis was conservatively based on the assumption that all data 

collection beyond HPMS requirements would be new collection. Therefore, this analysis 

of the additional cost to States is most likely greater than the actual cost that would be 

incurred. Individual cost estimates would vary by the circumstances in each State. 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Costs

A summary of the additional costs identified includes the following three sets of data 

elements:

1. A common relational location referencing system on all public roads.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on all non-Federal-aid roadways, 

since HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

2. The 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under HPMS on all public roads.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on Federal-aid roadways since 16 

of the 38 total FDE/HSIP are already required for HPMS on Federal-aid 

highways.

3. The complete 38 FDE/HSIP on all public roads.

- Additional costs would be incurred on all non-Federal-aid highways, since 

HPMS does not require data collection of these elements on non-Federalaid roadways.

The costs were collected from a variety of vendors and were broken down into a per-mile 

basis for segments, per intersection, and per ramp. The summary of data collection costs 

is shown in Table 1.
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Table 1. Summary of Average Data Collection Costs in Addition to HPMS

Requirements

(2010 U.S. Dollars)

Data Collection Elements Per Mile Per 

Intersection Per Ramp

Location Referencing System on

Non-Federal-aid Highways 

Total $40

22 FDE/HSIP on

Federal-aid Roadways

(all FDE/HSIP minus HPMS 

elements)

Elements $60 $130 $100

Traffic Data -- $590 $400

22 FDE/HSIP Total $60 $720 $500

All FDE/HSIP on

Non-Federal-aid Roadways

Elements $70 $130 $100

Traffic Data $460 $590 $400

All Elements – Total $530 $720 $500

Benefits 

There are no established methodologies for estimating the safety benefits of collecting 

roadway data elements. It was not feasible at the time this analysis was conducted to 

develop a direct estimate of the safety benefits of collecting roadway inventory data. In 

lieu of a traditional cost-benefit estimate, a “cost effectiveness” approach was taken. 

For the purposes of this analysis, work was conducted to determine what safety benefits 

would need to be realized from data collection in order to exceed the costs of collection. 

The needed benefits were calculated by developing an estimate of the number of fatalities 

and injuries that would need to be reduced in order to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a 2:1 ratio of 

benefits to costs. These estimates were developed for two scenarios:
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Scenario 1:

• Develop a common statewide relational location referencing system on all public 

roads that is linkable with crash data (i.e., geographic information system, linear 

referencing system, etc).

- This would require developing a referencing system on all non-Federal-aid 

roadways, since HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

• Collect the FDE/HSIP on all Federal-aid highways. 

- This would require collecting the 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under 

HPMS on roads, since 16 of the 38 total FDE/HSIP are already required 

for HPMS on Federal-aid highways.

Scenario 2:

• Develop a common statewide relational location referencing system on all public 

roads that is linkable with crash data (i.e., GIS, linear referencing system, etc).

- This would require developing a referencing system on all non-Federal-aid 

roadways, since HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

• Collect the FDE/HSIP on all Federal-aid highways. 

- This would require collecting the 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under 

HPMS on roads, since 16 of the 38 total FDE/HSIP are already required 

for HPMS on Federal-aid highways.

• Collect the FDE/HSIP on all non-Federal-aid roads.

- This would require collecting all 38 FDE/HSIP along all non-Federal-aid 

highways, since HPMS does not require data collection of these elements 

on non-Federal-aid roadways.

For both Scenarios, the first two initiatives would involve developing a statewide 

relational location referencing system on all public roads, and collecting the FDE/HSIP 

on all Federal-aid highways. Scenario 2 adds a third initiative of collecting the 

FDE/HSIP in all non-Federal-aid roads. 

The analysis period for this effort was established to be 2012 – 2031. The costs were 

aggregated out to the State level, and then the estimated needed reductions in fatalities 

and injuries were determined based on the costs for each scenario. Both the costs and 

benefits were estimated across the analysis period and discounted to reflect 2010 U.S. 

dollars. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

For Scenario 1, the average annual cost of data collection for an average State (based on 

HPMS mileage) is $6.3 million for initial collection and $3.4 million for maintenance 

over the analysis period of 2012 – 2031 (in 2010 U.S. dollars). Using a base of 

$6,339,701 as the comprehensive cost of a fatality and $516,947 as the comprehensive 

cost for an injury, a reduction of 0.6 fatalities and 41.0 injuries is required to achieve a

greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio (2). For Scenario 2, 2.5 fatalities and 163.7 injuries 

are needed to achieve greater than a 1:1 benefit. Scenario 2 includes collecting the 

FDE/HSIP on both Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid roads.

Table 2. Summary of Analysis for Average State

Analysis Period 2012 – 2031

Average Annual Costs and Needed Benefits

(Millions of 2010 U.S. Dollars)

Scenario

Cost 

During 

Collection

Cost During 

Maintenance

Estimated 

Fatalities

Needed to 

Achieve 

>1:1

Estimated 

Injuries

Needed to 

Achieve 

>1:1

Estimated 

Fatalities 

Needed to 

Achieve-

>2:1

Estimated 

Injuries

Needed to 

Achieve 

>2:1

1 $6.3 $3.4 0.6 41.0 1.2 81.6

2 $23.8 $12.8 2.5 163.7 5.0 325.9

Note - Costs are accumulated throughout the entire analysis period; benefits are realized after the 

data collection is complete.

Future Research

This effort was a preliminary attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of collecting 

roadway and traffic data for safety. The primary theory driving the analysis is that 

collecting additional roadway and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety 

analysis process will improve an agency’s ability to locate problem areas and apply 

appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. Based on the work conducted for 

this effort, including a thorough literature review, it was determined that there are no 

established methodologies for quantifying the benefits of investing in safety data 

improvements. Additional research needs to be conducted to build upon the analysis 

provided in this report to work towards filling that knowledge gap by developing 

guidance on the methodologies that can be applied to determine the benefits of investing 

in data systems and processes for achieving a data-driven safety program. Developing 

such methodologies would be the crucial next step to help the FHWA Office of Safety 

achieve its goal to reduce highway fatalities by providing decision makers the tools they 

need to make informed decisions through an evidenced-based approach to safety 

implementation.
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Introduction

Quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, 

and safety of roadways. By incorporating roadway and traffic data into safety analysis 

procedures, States can better identify safety problems and prescribe solutions to support their 

Highway Safety Improvement Programs (HSIPs) and implement their Strategic Highway Safety 

Plans (SHSPs). Furthermore, a new generation of safety analysis tools and methods are being 

developed to help identify safety issues and to provide recommendations for improvements. 

These safety analysis tools, such as the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and related software 

SafetyAnalyst and Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM), all require quality

roadway, traffic, and crash data to achieve the most accurate results. Using roadway and traffic 

data together with crash data can help agencies to make decisions that are fiscally responsible 

and to improve the safety of the roadways for all users.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed guidance for States on 

implementing their HSIPs. While HSIP guidance provides information on how safety data 

should be used, there is no additional detail on the specific data elements that State and local 

agencies should be collecting, maintaining, and using to support their HSIPs and SHSPs. The 

FHWA Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) provides a recommended listing of 

roadway inventory and traffic elements critical to safety management. The MIRE Version 1.0 

report includes over 200 roadway and traffic data elements (3). Due to the economic climate, it 

may not be feasible for States to collect all of the MIRE elements and integrate them into their 

existing programs. There remains a need for information on the fundamental roadway and traffic 

elements that departments of transportation (DOTs) should be collecting to support their HSIPs.

In response to this need, the FHWA held a series of information gathering sessions in 2009 and 

2010 and convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) from 2010 through 2011. The purpose 

of the information gathering sessions and TWG was to determine which set of roadway and 

traffic data elements States should be collecting, what data States are capable of collecting given 

the current economic environment, and the importance of using roadway and traffic data to 

support the States’ HSIPs.

States should have a common statewide location referencing system, such as a geographic 

information system (GIS) or a linear referencing system, on all public roads. This will enable 

States to locate high crash locations on all public roads. As States expand their inventories, these

common statewide systems will enable States to link these locations with additional data 

systems, such as roadway and traffic data.

States should also be collecting a set of minimum roadway and traffic data elements that are 

fundamental to support a State’s HSIP on all public roads. This set of elements is herein referred 

to as the Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP (FDE/HSIP). The FDE/HSIP include segment, 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

intersection, and ramp data elements and were determined to be the basic set of data elements 

that an agency would need to conduct enhanced safety analyses to support a State’s HSIP.

Objective

The objective of this effort was to conduct a market analysis of the potential cost to States in 

developing a statewide location referencing system and collecting the FDE/HSIP on all public 

roadways. The primary theory is that collecting additional roadway and traffic data and 

integrating those data into the safety analysis process will improve an agency’s ability to locate 

problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety.

Background

The following sections provide additional background on the use of safety data in the HSIP, the 

MIRE elements, and the FDE/HSIP, as each relates to this effort.

Use of Safety Data in the HSIP

In 2009, 33,808 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the U.S. According to the U.S. 

DOT, the total societal cost of crashes exceeds $230 billion annually (4). The Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005, established the HSIP as a core Federal-aid 

program. The overall objective of the HSIP is 

to significantly reduce the occurrence of 

fatalities and serious injuries resulting from 

crashes on all public roads. The FHWA 

established a formalized HSIP process to 

ensure that the HSIP is carried out in an 

organized, systematic manner where the 

greatest benefits are achieved. 

The 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 924 states that “The HSIP shall include a datadriven SHSP and the resulting implementation through highway safety improvement projects.”

Further, it defines a SHSP as “a comprehensive, data-driven safety plan developed, 

implemented, and evaluated in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148”(5).

While the formalized HSIP process detailed in 23 CFR Part 924 addresses the use of safety data 

in the HSIP, there is no additional detail on the specific data elements that agencies should be 

collecting, maintaining, and using to support their HSIPs and development and implementation 

of their SHSPs. This was highlighted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report 

09-035 on the HSIP. The report, titled Highway Safety Improvement Program, Further Efforts 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States’ Top Safety Priorities 

regarding the HSIP, contained recommendations regarding data needs to help fill identified gaps 

(6). These recommendations, which the FHWA accepted for action, include the following:

1) Define which roadway inventory data elements a State needs to meet Federal 

requirements for HSIP.

2) Set a deadline for States to finalize development of the required roadway data.

3) Require States to submit schedules to the FHWA for achieving compliance with this 

requirement (6). 

There still remains a need for guidance for the fundamental roadway and traffic data elements 

that States should be collecting to support their HSIP.

Model Inventory of Roadway Elements

MIRE, the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements, is a recommended listing of roadway 

inventory and traffic elements critical to safety management (3). MIRE is intended as a 

guideline to help transportation agencies improve their roadway and traffic data inventories. It 

provides a basis for what can be considered a good/robust data inventory and helps agencies 

move towards the use of performance measures.

There are a total of 202 elements that comprise the MIRE listing. 

These elements are divided among three broad categories: roadway 

segments, roadway alignment, and roadway junctions. There are 

many benefits to State and local transportation agencies in expanding 

their inventories through the collection of MIRE elements. Having 

these additional data can help better identify where the safety 

problems are, what those problems are, and how best to treat them. 

Additional information on MIRE, including the full listing of 

elements, can be found at http://www.mireinfo.org.

MIRE is intended as guidance and provides a comprehensive listing of the data elements to 

support the HSIP. However, due to the economic climate, it may not be feasible for States to 

collect all of the MIRE elements and integrate them into their existing programs.

Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP (FDE/HSIP)

While MIRE provides a comprehensive listing of roadway and traffic data elements, it may not 

be feasible for States to collect all of the 200+ MIRE elements and integrate them into their 

existing programs. State departments of transportation (DOTs), particularly highway safety 

agencies, are facing increasing demands and decreasing resources. Additionally, the 23 CFR 924 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

provides only general information on how safety data should be used; it does not provide details 

on specific data elements (5). There remains a need for information on a minimum set of 

fundamental roadway and traffic elements that DOTs should be collecting to support their 

HSIPs.

In order to address the States’ safety data improvements challenges, the FHWA held a series of 

information gathering sessions and convened a TWG. The purpose of the TWG was to determine 

the roadway and traffic data elements that States should be collecting, what States are capable of 

collecting given the current economic environment, and the importance of using roadway and 

traffic data in the safety analysis process. 

States should have a common statewide location referencing system, such as geographic 

information system (GIS) or a linear referencing system, on all public roads. This will enable 

States to locate high crash locations on all public roads in the State. As States expand their 

inventories, this common system will enable States to link these locations with additional data 

systems, such as roadway and traffic data.

States should also be collecting a set of minimum roadway and traffic data elements on all public 

roads that are fundamental to support a State’s HSIP - the FDE/HSIP. These are based on the 

elements needed to apply HSM roadway safety management (Part B) procedures using network 

screening analytical tools (such as SafetyAnalyst), are a subset of MIRE, and duplicate many of 

HPMS full extent elements that States are already required to collect on Federal-aid Highways. 

The FDE/HSIP are comprised of roadway segment, intersection, and ramp elements as shown in 

Table 3. 

The FDE/HSIP are a basic set of elements an agency would need to conduct effective, enhanced 

safety analysis independent of the specific analysis tools used or methods applied. While the 

FDE/HSIP were selected in part based on the basic data requirements of existing tools such as 

the HSM and related SafetyAnalyst, they are not exclusive to these tools. The FHWA recognizes 

that many States are developing analysis tools in-house that will help to support their HSIPs. All 

States should be moving towards using analysis tools and having the FDE/HSIP available to 

utilize these tools, regardless of whether they are the tools developed through Federal efforts or 

they are developed in-house.
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Table 3. FDE/HSIP Elements.

FDE/HSIP Elements Definition

Roadway Segment

Segment ID* Unique segment identifier.

Route Name* Signed numeric value for the roadway segment.

Alternate Route Name* The route or street name, where different from route number.

Route Type* Federal-aid/National Highway System (NHS) route type.

Area Type* The rural or urban designation based on Census urban 

boundary and population.

Date Opened to Traffic The date at which the site was opened to traffic.

Start Location* The location of the starting point of the roadway segment.

End Location* The location of the ending point of the roadway segment.

Segment Length* The length of the segment.

Segment Direction Direction of inventory if divided roads are inventoried in each 

direction.

Roadway Class* The functional class of the segment.

Median Type The type of median present on the segment.

Access Control* The degree of access control.

Two-Way vs. One-Way 

Operation*

Indication of whether the segment operates as a one- or two-way 

roadway.

Number of Through Lanes* The total number of through lanes on the segment. This 

excludes turn lanes and auxiliary lanes.

Interchange Influence Area 

on Mainline Freeway

The value of this item indicates whether or not a roadway is 

within an interchange influence area.

AADT*

The average number of vehicles passing through a segment 

from both directions of the mainline route for all days of a 

specified year

AADT Year* Year of AADT.

Intersection

Intersection ID A unique junction identifier.

Location Location of the center of the junction on the first intersecting 

route (e.g., route-milepost). 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Table 3. FDE/HSIP Elements Continued.

FDE/HSIP Elements Definition

Intersection Type The type of geometric configuration that best describes the 

intersection/junction.

Date Opened to Traffic The date at which the site was opened to traffic.

Traffic Control Type Traffic control present at intersection/junction.

Major Road AADT The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the approach 

leg of the intersection/junction.

Major Road AADT Year The year of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the 

approach leg of the intersection/junction.

Minor Road AADT The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the approach 

leg of the intersection/junction.

Minor Road AADT Year The year of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the 

approach leg of the intersection/junction.

Intersection Leg ID A unique identifier for each approach of an intersection.

Leg Type Specifies the major/minor road classification of this leg 

relative to the other legs in the intersection. 

Leg Segment ID A unique identifier for the segment associated with this leg.

Ramp/Interchange

Ramp ID*

An identifier for each ramp that is part of a given interchange. 

This defines which ramp the following elements are 

describing.

Date Opened to Traffic The date at which the site was opened to traffic.

Start Location

Location on the roadway at the beginning ramp terminal (e.g.,

route-milepost for that roadway) if the ramp connects with a 

roadway at that point.

Ramp Type Indicates whether the ramp is used to enter or exit a freeway, 

or connect two freeways. 

Ramp/Interchange

Configuration Describes the characterization of the design of the ramp.

Ramp Length Length of ramp.

Ramp AADT* AADT on ramp.

Ramp AADT Year Year of AADT on ramp.
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

*HPMS full extent elements required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within 

grade-separated interchanges, i.e., NHS and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and 

locals.

In 2011, the FHWA Office of Safety released a guidance memorandum on the fundamental data 

elements that States should be collecting and incorporating into their safety analyses to support 

their HSIPs and indicate on what roadways they should be collecting data. In addition to the 

memorandum, the FHWA Office of Safety has also developed the Background Report: 

Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program, to 

support the guidance set forth in memorandum and act as a counterpart to this analysis (7). The 

Background Report provides additional detail on FDE/HSIP, existing and emerging data 

collection methodologies, estimated costs of collection (based on the results of this market 

analysis), potential funding sources, and model performance measures.

Literature Review

The literature review for this research effort focused on identifying literature pertaining to the 

costs and benefits of collecting data. This extensive search looked at sources both within the 

transportation industry and expanded to fields outside of transportation including forestry, 

medicine and health, ecology, water resources, and mining. Literature from these fields was 

reviewed for any pertinent methodologies or findings that could be helpful to this research effort. 

The findings from the review were used to help develop a methodology for conducting a market

analysis of the cost and benefits of collecting roadway data to improve highway safety. Most of 

the literature did not contain information directly relevant to developing a methodology for this 

type of cost-benefit analysis; however, there were a few resources that provided useful 

information, and these are summarized in the following paragraphs.

The Colorado DOT conducted a study evaluating the statewide economic benefits of future 

transportation investments. The research investigated the benefits of additional transportation 

spending above what is needed to maintain current transportation performance levels. The 

researchers were able to quantify certain benefits related to transportation improvements, 

including reduced congestion, pavement quality, safety improvements, and general system 

improvements. Other benefits (e.g., quality of life, new jobs, and better access to recreation) that 

they were unable to quantify for the economic analysis were still determined to have a positive 

impact (8).

Several reports provided information on the cost of collecting roadway data. A 1998 report from 

the FHWA investigated the cost and quality issues associated with collecting and managing 

highway safety data (9). In 2009, a North Carolina DOT research effort collected asset 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

management data on 95 miles of roadway to determine the capabilities and limitations of 

automated roadway data collection systems. Various vendors were used to collect a sampling of 

pavement, roadside, geotechnical, and bridge elements (10). In a similar effort, the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) Strategic Highway Safety Research Program (SHRP2) 

conducted a roadway data collection “rodeo” where vendors used mobile data collection units to 

collect over 100 roadway data elements. Information from the vendors who participated in both 

of these data collection efforts was used to help develop cost estimates for the market analysis 

(11).

A recent study by Li et al. presents a methodology for a benefit-cost analysis of improving 

highway segment safety hardware over its life cycle. The researchers established a safety index 

by assessing the risk of vehicle crashes with safety-related attributes on the roadway segment. 

An annual potential for safety improvements associated with improvements to the hardware was 

calculated and compared to the number of collisions on the segment with and without hardware 

upgrades. The methodology outlined in this report relies on a sufficient amount of historical 

data, including vehicle crashes, highway system preservation, traffic operations, and 

expenditures, as well as data processing and analysis capabilities. This methodology was too 

specific for the purpose of developing this market analysis but presented a vision on how future 

data efforts could be quantified, comparing locations without data and locations with data (12).

A full list of all of the literature reviewed for this project, including a brief summary of each 

resource, can be found in Appendix A.

Methodology

Overview

Based on the results of the literature review, communications with States, discussions with 

experts, and review of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance (13), an

appropriate methodology was developed to meet the objectives of this effort given the available 

information. 

The literature review showed there were no established methodologies to estimate the benefit of 

collecting roadway data elements for safety. No one State was identified that has collected the 

exact list of FDE/HSIP on all public roadways within the State. Therefore, an analysis of 

collecting all 38 FDE/HSIP to determine the safety benefits was not feasible at the time this 

investigation was conducted.

An alternate approach was developed to conduct the market analysis. The costs for data 

collection were provided from several vendors and one State DOT that had been investigating 

conducting a similar effort. The number of fatalities and injuries that would need to be reduced 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

in order for the monetized benefits to exceed the costs was estimated to determine the benefits. 

The methodology developed is a hybrid of a benefit-cost analysis and a cost effectiveness 

analysis.

The cost estimations developed for this analysis reflect the additional costs that States would 

incur based on what is not already being collected through HPMS or not already being collected 

through other efforts. At the time of this analysis, the FHWA did not know the extent of data 

collection practices for all States beyond HPMS requirements. In order to accommodate a range 

of data collection practices among the States, the methodology for the analysis was 

conservatively based on the assumption that all data collection beyond HPMS requirements 

would be new collection. Therefore, this analysis of the additional cost to States is most likely 

greater than the actual cost that would be incurred. Individual cost estimates would vary by the 

circumstances in each State.

A location referencing system is already required under HPMS for all Federal-aid highways. In 

addition, 16 of the 38 FDE/HSIP are also already required for collection under the HPMS for the 

full extent of Federal-aid highways (1). Full extent accounts for all Federal-aid highways and 

ramps located within grade-separated interchanges (i.e., NHS and all functional systems 

excluding rural minor collectors and locals). Table 3 indicates which of the 38 FDE/HSIP are 

HPMS full extent elements.

Data Collection Costs

The additional costs identified include the following three sets of data elements:

1. A common relational location referencing system.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on all non-Federal-aid roadways, since 

HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

2. The 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under HPMS.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on Federal-aid roadways, since 16 of the 

38 total FDE/HSIP are already required for HPMS on Federal-aid highways.

3. The complete 38 FDE/HSIP.

- Additional costs would be incurred on all non-Federal-aid highways, since HPMS 

does not require data collection of these elements on non-Federal-aid roadways.

In order to conduct the analysis, costs were obtained from 12 data collection vendors from 

around the country. Costs were obtained from the vendors on a per-mile basis along segments, a 

per-intersection basis for intersections, and a per-ramp basis for ramps. The costs for developing 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

a location referencing system were estimated per mile. For the case of traffic counts on 

segments, an estimate of one count per mile was used to estimate to generate a per mile cost. 

These costs included data collection and reduction for integration into a State’s existing system.

Vendors were identified based on the list of vendors involved in the North Carolina and the 

Transportation Research Board Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (TRB SHRP2) data 

collection rodeos which were both conducted in 2008. These rodeos were conducted to test the 

capabilities of roadway data collection technologies. Many of the rodeo vendors only collected 

roadway inventory elements and not traffic counts, so the project team also identified several 

companies that collect traffic counts to obtain cost estimates. The (non-traffic) roadway 

elements are collected using different methods than the traffic data, and, therefore, the costs for 

each were calculated separately.

The majority of vendors estimated that they would use digital data collection vans to collect the 

roadway inventory data. For traffic count data, vendors provided cost estimates based on 48-

hour classification counts for segment traffic data, peak hour manual counts for intersections, 

and technology similar to segment counts to collect ramp data. The costs provided were 

averaged to develop estimates.

The analysis was based on information provided by vendors and reflects the methods and costs 

that would be used if the collection was contracted. There are other methods of collecting some 

of these data elements, including extracting the data from existing plans or visual imagery such 

as aerials or Google Earth. Some of these methods may be lower in costs, particularly if the cost 

of agency personnel are not included as part of the costs.

In addition, several State DOTs were contacted to obtain estimates of what the costs would be to 

collect these “in-house” rather than contract the data collection out to a vendor. Since the data 

collection was very specific to this list of FDE/HSIP, the majority of States contacted could not 

provide an estimate of costs. Only one State that was considering conducting a similar effort

provided cost information. However, that State was only considering the collection on 

intersections. The analysis was conducted using the estimates provided by the vendors, 

acknowledging that these are conservative estimates, and there may be more cost effective 

methods available (but information for those methods was not available).

Benefits

For the purposes of this analysis, the benefits were calculated by developing an estimate of the 

benefits needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a 2:1 ratio of benefits to costs. The first step in the 

analysis was to calculate the cost of a fatality and the cost of an injury. The 2008 comprehensive 

cost of a fatality used in the analysis was $6,339,701 and $516,947 for an injury, based on 

information provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2). The 

injury costs reflect a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) Level 3 injury. MAIS injuries 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

are on a scale of 0-5, with 5 being the most severe non-fatal injury. MAIS Level 3 was chosen as 

a “mid-point” in this scale.

The future cost of a fatality and injury were forecasted out 20 years to 2031 and then discounted 

to reflect 2010 dollar values. A discount rate of 7.0 percent was used. The benefit estimation 

assumed that the benefits would not be realized until the data collection is complete: 2021 for 

Federal-aid and 2022 for non-Federal-aid roads.

An average of the costs of a fatality and the cost of an injury from 2021 through 2032 was 

calculated. This calculation provided the cost of a fatality and the cost of an injury, represented

in 2010 dollars.

In order to determine the balance of the number of fatalities and injuries that should be used in 

calculating the benefits, a ratio of the number of fatalities to injuries was calculated using 2009 

crash data. In 2009 there were 33,808 total fatalities and 2,217,000 total injuries (14), equating 

to a fatality to injury ratio of approximately 1:66. Using that ratio, the number fatalities and 

injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a 2:1 ratio of benefits to cost was developed for each 

State, and for each scenario.

Classification of Roadway Ownership

Costs were aggregated to a State level to estimate the reduction in crashes (fatalities and serious 

injuries) needed to exceed the costs. The first step in the analysis was to develop a classification 

of roadway ownership for each State. Three States were analyzed: an “average” State, a small 

State (information from Rhode Island was used to represent a small State), and a large State 

(information from California was used to represent a large State). To calculate the costs for each 

State, the mileage, number of intersections, and number of ramps was determined for the 

Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid roadways. The mileage was obtained from the FHWA Office of 

Highway Policy Information (OHPI) (15). The mileage for the “average” State was calculated 

using the U.S total (including Washington, DC) and dividing by 51.

There is not yet an estimate of intersections or ramps available through the OHPI. Therefore, the 

project team contacted States directly to obtain estimates of the number of intersections and 

ramps in each State. In addition to a large State and a small State, Missouri and Ohio were 

contacted to obtain estimates for the “average” State. Missouri and Ohio were chosen to 

represent the “average” State based on their land mass, roadway mileage, and geographic 

locations.

All of the States except California were able to provide the total number of intersections and 

ramps in the State. In California, the total number of intersections was estimated based on the 

total number of miles in the State. The distribution of mileage of Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

roadways was used to estimate the same distribution for intersections. This assumes there is the 

same density of intersections per mile on each roadway set.

The number of ramps provided by the States was applied to the Federal-aid roadways with the 

justification that there would most likely not be ramps on non-Federal-aid roads. The 

distribution of roadway ownership by State, mileage, intersections, and ramps is shown in Table 

4.

Table 4. Breakdown of Roadway Ownership.

State Mileage 

Federal-aid

Mileage 

NonFederal-aid

Intersections 

Federal-aid

Intersections 

NonFederal-aid

Ramps 

Federal-aid

Ramps 

NonFederal-aid

Average 

State 19,430 57,390 70,430 208,020 4,450 0

Rhode 

Island 1,750 4,600 27,560 72,440 380 0

California 55,230 103,490 132,370 248,030 14,660 0

Aggregated Costs

The aggregated costs were developed for two scenarios:

• Scenario 1:

- Develop a common statewide relational location referencing system on all public 

roads that is linkable with crash data (i.e., GIS, linear referencing system, etc).

- Additional costs would be incurred for developing a referencing system on 

all non-Federal-aid roadways, since HPMS currently requires this for 

Federal-aid highways. 

- Collect the FDE/HSIP on all Federal-aid highways. 

- Additional costs would be incurred for collecting the 22 FDE/HSIP that 

are not required under HPMS on roads since 16 of the total FDE/HSIP are 

already required for HPMS on Federal-aid highways.

• Scenario 2:

- Develop a common statewide relational location referencing system on all public 

roads that is linkable with crash data (i.e., GIS, linear referencing system, etc).
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

- Additional costs would be incurred for developing a referencing system on 

all non-Federal-aid roadways, since HPMS currently requires this for 

Federal-aid highways. 

- Collect the FDE/HSIP on all Federal-aid highways. 

- Additional costs would be incurred for collecting the 22 FDE/HSIP that 

are not required under HPMS on roads since 16 of the total FDE/HSIP are 

already required for HPMS on Federal-aid highways.

- Collect the FDE/HSIP on all non-Federal-aid roads.

- Additional costs would be incurred for collecting all 38 FDE/HSIP all 

non-Federal-aid highways, since HPMS does not require data collection 

of these elements on non-Federal-aid roadways.

For both Scenarios, the first two initiatives involve developing a statewide relational location 

referencing system on all public roads, and collecting the FDE/HSIP on all Federal-aid 

highways. Scenario 2 adds a third initiative of collecting the FDE/HSIP in all non-Federal-aid 

roads. 

The base cost for mileage, intersections, and ramps was then disaggregated annually. The time 

frames include five years for segments, seven years for intersections, and nine years for ramps on 

Federal-aid roads; and six, eight, and ten years respectively for non-Federal-aid roadways. These 

time frames were selected as reasonable intervals for State and local agency collection of the 

FDE/HSIP data.

For this analysis, data collection was estimated to begin in 2012 and continue for nine years to 

2020 for Federal-aid roadways, and continue for ten years to 2021 for non-Federal-aid roadways. 

The analysis assumes an equal distribution of costs over the data collection period.

In addition to the costs of initial data collection, the costs to maintain the data were also 

calculated. That is, the costs to update the data as conditions change. For segment data, it was 

assumed that five percent of the roadway mileage would be updated annually. These updates 

would not be done by re-collecting the data, but rather based on updates from 

construction/design plans. It was approximated that updating the inventory would take two 

hours per mile by an employee earning $20.00 an hour (approximately $40,000 per year).

The intersection inventory would be updated on a three-year cycle for signalized intersections

and a five-year cycle for unsignalized intersections. This assumes that traffic volumes will not 

change dramatically at unsignalized intersections. A split of 20 percent of signalized 

intersections and 80 percent of unsignalized intersections was used to determine the number of 

signalized and unsignalized intersections. In addition, the cost of inventory updates was also 

included in the maintenance costs.
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

The analysis assumes that a ramp inventory would be updated on a six-year cycle, with counts 

and inventory updates collected on one-sixth of the ramps per year.

The costs for coding and locating crashes on non-Federal-aid roads was also calculated since 

States would now have the information they need to locate crashes, which they would not have 

had previously. National statistics were obtained from NHTSA to estimate a ratio of fatal 

crashes to injury crashes (14). The number of fatal crashes on non-Federal-aid roads was 

obtained from the NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) (16). The ratio of fatal to 

injury crashes was applied to the number of fatal crashes on non-Federal-aid highways to obtain 

an estimate of injury crashes on non-Federal-aid highways. Costs for locating and coding these 

additional crashes were then applied. It was assumed that five crashes could be coded per hour at 

a cost of $20/hour. These costs only pertain to the costs of coding and locating fatal and injury 

crashes. The number of property damage only crashes on non-Federal-aid roads could be not 

reasonably estimated; therefore, they were not included. 

These assumptions on data collection cycles, maintenance, and crash coding were based on 

standard practices obtained through discussions with several States.

Once the costs for collection, maintenance, and coding of the data were determined, they were 

summed to establish a total cost per year out to 2032. This timeframe would allow for the total 

10-year data collection period (for non-Federal-aid roads) and an additional 10 years of 

implementation. These costs were then discounted using a 7.0 percent discount rate per the 

OMB guidance to bring the costs back to 2010 values (13). Once the costs were all in the same 

value year, an annual average cost during the data collection period and an annual average cost 

during the maintenance period was calculated.

Results

The results of the analysis are shown in the following sections. 

Costs

The additional costs identified include the following three sets of data elements:

1. A common relational location referencing system.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on all non-Federal-aid roadways, since 

HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

2. The 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under HPMS.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on Federal-aid roadways, since 16 of the 

38 total FDE/HSIP are already required for HPMS on Federal-aid highways.

3. The complete 38 FDE/HSIP.
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

- Additional costs would be incurred on all non-Federal-aid highways, since HPMS 

does not require data collection of these elements on non-Federal-aid roadways.

Table 5 provides the calculated average cost per mile, per intersection, and per ramp for each of 

the sets of elements.

Table 5. Summary of Average Data Collection Costs in Addition to HPMS Requirements.

(2010 U.S. Dollars)

Data Collection Elements Per Mile Per 

Intersection Per Ramp

Location Referencing System on

Non-Federal-aid Highways 

Total $40

22 FDE/HSIP on

Federal-aid Roadways

(all FDE/HSIP minus HPMS elements)

Elements $60 $130 $100

Traffic Data -- $590 $400

22 FDE/HSIP Total $60 $720 $500

All FDE/HSIP on

Non-Federal-aid Roadways

Elements $70 $130 $100

Traffic Data $460 $590 $400

All Elements – Total $530 $720 $500

Benefits

The benefits, in terms of the number of fatalities and injuries that would need to be reduced in 

order to achieve a greater than 1:1 and greater than 2:1 benefit to cost ratio, were determined for 

each State and for each scenario. 

The future cost of a fatality and injury were forecasted out to 2031 and then discounted to reflect 

2010 dollar values. The costs were then averaged across the analysis period to provide the cost 

of a future fatality and the cost of an injury represented in 2010 dollars.

For Scenario 1, this resulted in an average future cost of approximately $2.2 million for a fatality 

and $0.2 million for an injury in 2010 dollars. Since the benefit estimation assumed that the 

benefits would not be realized until the data collection is complete (2021 for Federal-aid and 

2022 for non-Federal-aid roads), the estimates varied slightly for Scenario 2. For Scenario 2, the 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

average future cost was approximately $2.1 million for a fatality and $0.2 million for an injury in 

2010 dollars. 

In order to determine the balance of the number of fatalities and injuries that should be used in 

calculating the benefits, a ratio of the number of fatalities to injuries was calculated using 2009 

crash data. In 2009 there were 33,808 total fatalities and 2,217,000 total injuries, equating to a 

fatality to injury ratio of approximately 1:66 (14). Using that ratio, the number fatalities and 

injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a 2:1 ratio of benefits to costs was developed for each 

State, and for each scenario.

The results of the analysis are presented in the following sections.

Scenario 1

• Develop a common statewide relational location referencing system on all public roads 

that is linkable with crash data (i.e., GIS, linear referencing system, etc).

- This would require developing a referencing system on all non-Federal-aid 

roadways, since HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

• Collect the FDE/HSIP on all Federal-aid highways. 

- This would require collecting the 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under HPMS 

on roads since 16 of the total FDE/HSIP are already required for HPMS on 

Federal-aid highways.

The summary of the average annual costs and required benefits for Scenario 1 are shown in

Table 6. For an average State, 0.6 fatalities and 41.0 injuries would need to be reduced per year 

in order to achieve a greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio. This increases to 1.2 fatalities and 

81.6 injuries that would need to be reduced per year to achieve a greater than 2:1 benefit to cost 

ratio for an average State. This ranges from 0.5 fatalities for a small State to 2.5 fatalities for a 

large State.
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Table 6. Summary Average Annual Cost and Needed Benefit for Scenario 1.

(Millions of 2010 U.S. Dollars)

State Cost of 

Collection

Cost of 

Maintenance

Cost of a 

Fatality

Cost of an 

Injury

Needed 

Fatalities

Needed 

Injuries

Benefit > 1:1

Average State $6.3 $3.4 $2.2 $0.2 0.6 41.0

Small State $2.4 $1.3 $2.2 $0.2 0.2 15.5

Large State $12.6 $6.7 $2.2 $0.2 1.2 80.8

Benefit > 2:1

Average State $6.3 $3.4 $2.2 $0.2 1.2 81.6

Small State $2.4 $1.3 $2.2 $0.2 0.5 30.8

Large State $12.6 $6.7 $2.2 $0.2 2.5 160.8

Note - Costs are accumulated throughout the entire analysis period; benefits are realized after the data 

collection is complete.

Scenario 2

• Develop a common statewide relational location referencing system on all public roads 

that is linkable with crash data (i.e., GIS, linear referencing system, etc).

- This would require developing a referencing system on all non-Federal-aid 

roadways, since HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

• Collect the FDE/HSIP on all Federal-aid highways. 

- This would require collecting the 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under HPMS 

on roads since 16 of the total FDE/HSIP are already required for HPMS on 

Federal-aid highways.

• Collect the FDE/HSIP on all non-Federal-aid roads.

- This would require collecting all 38 FDE/HSIP all non-Federal-aid highways, 

since HPMS does not require data collection of these elements on non-Federal-aid 

roadways.

The summary of the average annual costs and required benefits for Scenario 2 are shown in 

Table 7. For an average State, 2.5 fatalities and 163.7 injuries would need to be reduced per year 

in order to achieve a greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio. This increases to 5.0 fatalities and 

325.9 injuries that would need to be reduced to achieve a greater than 2:1 benefit to cost ratio for 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

an average State. This ranges from 1.7 fatalities for a small State to 7.3 fatalities for a large 

State.

Table 7. Summary Average Annual Cost and Needed Benefit for Scenario 2.

(Millions of 2010 U.S. Dollars)

State Cost of 

Collection

Cost of 

Maintenance

Cost of a 

Fatality

Cost of an 

Injury

Needed 

Fatalities

Needed 

Injuries

Benefit > 1:1

Average State $23.8 $12.8 $2.1 $0.2 2.5 163.7

Small State $8.2 $4.5 $2.1 $0.2 0.9 57.3

Large State $36.0 $17.7 $2.1 $0.2 3.7 241.1

Benefit > 2:1

Average State $23.8 $12.8 $2.1 $0.2 5.0 325.9

Small State $8.2 $4.5 $2.1 $0.2 1.7 114.0

Large State $36.0 $17.7 $2.1 $0.2 7.3 479.9

Note - Costs are accumulated throughout the entire analysis period; benefits are realized after the data 

collection is complete.

While this report provides estimates for an the average, small and large State, the FHWA Office 

of Safety has developed a spreadsheet tool to help States better estimate the cost to collect 

FDE/HSIP for their specific State. This spreadsheet takes into account collection costs spread 

over a specified time frame, ongoing costs to maintain the additional data, and other factors 

involved in the collection and maintenance of data. It also provides States an estimate of how 

many fatalities and injuries would need to be reduced in order to exceed the data collection costs 

using the methodology laid out in this report. 

Summary

The purpose of this effort was to conduct a market analysis of the development of a statewide 

common location referencing system and the collection of the FDE/HSIP on all public roads. 

The primary theory is that collecting additional roadway and traffic data, and integrating those 

data into the safety analysis process, will improve an agency’s ability to locate problem areas and 

apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety.

A literature review was conducted to identify resources to help develop a methodology for 

analysis of the cost and benefits of collecting additional roadway data to improve highway 

safety. The literature review showed there were no established methodologies to estimate the 
Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

benefit of collecting roadway data elements for safety. An alternate approach was developed to 

conduct the market analysis. The costs for data collection were gathered from vendors and State 

DOT. For benefits, an estimate of how many fatalities and injuries would need to be reduced in 

order exceed the costs (for a 1:1 and 2:1 ratio) were developed. That is, this analysis identified 

the benefit required to obtain cost effectiveness.

The additional costs identified include the following three sets of data elements:

1. A common relational location referencing system on all public roads.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on all non-Federal-aid roadways, since 

HPMS currently requires this for Federal-aid highways. 

2. The 22 FDE/HSIP that are not required under HPMS on all public roads.

- Additional costs would only be incurred on Federal-aid roadways since 16 of the 

total FDE/HSIP are already required for HPMS on Federal-aid highways.

3. The complete 38 FDE/HSIP on all public roads.

- Additional costs would be incurred on all non-Federal-aid highways, since HPMS 

does not require data collection of these elements on non-Federal-aid roadways.

The costs were collected from a variety of vendors and a State DOT, and were broken down into 

per mile (for segments), per intersection, and per ramp costs.

When the costs were aggregated out to the State level, the estimated reduction in fatalities and 

injuries were determined based on the costs for each Scenario. Table 8 shows the range of data 

collection costs and estimated required benefits for the average State for both scenarios. For 

Scenario 1, the total cost of data collection for an average State (based on HPMS mileage) is 

$6.3 million for initial collection, and $3.4 million for maintenance over the analysis period of 

2012 – 2031 (in 2010 U.S. dollars). A reduction of 0.6 fatalities and 41.0 injuries is required to 

achieve a greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio. This increases in Scenario 2, which also includes 

collecting the FDE/HSIP on all non-Federal-aid roads. For Scenario 2, 2.5 fatalities and 163.7

injuries are needed to achieve greater than a 1:1 benefit.
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

26 

Table 8. Summary of Market Analysis for Average State. 

Analysis Period 2012–2031 

Average Annual Costs and Needed Benefits 

(Millions of 2010 U.S. Dollars) 

Scenario 

Cost 

During 

Collection 

Cost During 

Maintenance 

Estimated 

Fatalities 

Needed to 

Achieve 

>1:1 

Estimated 

Injuries 

Needed to 

Achieve 

>1:1 

Estimated 

Fatalities 

Needed to 

Achieve- 

>2:1 

Estimated 

Injuries 

Needed to 

Achieve 

>2:1 

1 $6.3 $3.4 0.6 41.0 1.2 81.6 

2 $23.8 $12.8 2.5 163.7 5.0 325.9 

Note - Costs are accumulated throughout the entire analysis period; benefits are realized after the data 

collection is complete. 

The work conducted for this project was a preliminary attempt to quantify the costs and benefits 

of collecting roadway and traffic data for safety. The primary theory driving the analysis is that 

collecting additional roadway and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis 

process will improve an agency’s ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate 

countermeasures, hence improving safety. Based on the work conducted for this effort, 

including a thorough literature review, it was determined that there are no established 

methodologies for quantifying the benefits of investing in safety data improvements. Additional 

research needs to be conducted to build upon the analysis provided in this report to work towards 

filling that knowledge gap by developing guidance on the methodologies that can be applied to 

determine the benefits of investing in data systems and processes for achieving a data-driven 

safety program. Developing such methodologies would be the crucial next step to help the 

FHWA Office of Safety achieve its goal to reduce highway fatalities by providing decision 

makers the tools they need to make informed decisions through an evidenced-based approach to 

safety implementation. 
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

27 

References

1. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway 

Performance Monitoring System, Accessed online August 2010. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm. 

2. Unpublished values provided by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

3. Lefler, N; F. Council; D. Harkey; D. Carter; H. McGee; and M. Daul. Model Inventory of 

Roadway Elements - MIRE, Version 1.0. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HRT10-048, Washington, DC, October 2010. 

4. Facts & Statistics, FHWA Safety Program, Federal Highway Administration, Accessed 

May 10, 2011, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts_stats/. 

5. Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Policy Guide, Title 23 - Code of Federal 

Regulations, Subchapter J – Highway Safety. Accessed online June 16, 2011, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/cfr23toc.htm. 

6. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Report 09-035: Highway Safety Improvement 

Program, Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding 

with States’ Top Safety Priorities Regarding the HSIP, November 2008. 

7. Lefler, N; R. Fiedler; H. McGee; R. Pollack; and J. Miller. Background Report: Guidance 

for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Federal 

Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-11-39, publication pending. 

8. Pickton, Todd, et al. Statewide Economic Benefits of Transportation Investment, 

Colorado Department of Transportation, 2007. 

9. Pfefer, Ronald C., et al. Highway Safety Data: Costs, Quality, and Strategies for 

Improvement Research Report, Federal Highway Administration, 1998. 

10. Kim, Y. Richard, et al. Asset Management Inventory and Data Collection, North Carolina 

Department of Transportation, 2009. 

11. Fay, Charles Sr., SHRP 2 Roadway Projects - Safety Symposium 2010 (presentation), 

Transportation Research Board Strategic Highway Research Program 2, 2010. 

12. Li, Zongzhi, et al. Project-Level Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Approach for 

Evaluating Highway Segment Safety Hardware Improvements, Transportation Research 

Record (2160), 2010. 

13. Office of Management and Guidance. Circular A-94, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/. 
Market		Analysis		of	Collecting	Fundamental	Roadway	Data	Elements	to		

Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

28 

14. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts: Highlights of 2009 

Motor Vehicle Crashes, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.pdf. 

15. Highway Statistics, 2008. Table HM-14 Federal Aid Highway Length – 2008 Miles by 

Ownership. FHWA Office of Policy, October 2009. 

16. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 
29 

Appendix A: Literature Matrix

Source Author(s) Publication Year 

Transportation Sources Colorado DOT Todd Pickton, Janet Clements, Robert W. Felsburg Statewide Economic Benefits of Transportation Investment 2007 Evaluat

using d

Colorado DOT Jim Mascolo, Ginger Pelz, Doug Magee 2008 Safety Engineering Annual Report 2008 Report County Road Association of Michigan and Michigan DOT 

County Road Association of Michigan and Michigan DOT 

PASER Cooperative Road Condition Survey Demonstration Project 2001 Descrip

FHWA Ronald C. Pfefer, Richard A. Raub, Roy E. Lucke Highway Safety Data: Costs, Quality, and Strategies for Improvement Research Report 1998 IdentifiFlorida DOT 

Iskandaria Masduki, Margaret Armstrong, Amy Finley, Rebecca Augustyniak, Kea Herron 

Applying Instructional Design Practices to Evaluate and Improve the Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI) Training Curriculum 

2010 

EvaluatRoadwstrategy 

NC Department of Transportation 

Y. Richard Kim, Joseph E. Hummer, Mohammed Gabr, David Johnston, B., Shane Underwood, Daniel J. Findley and Christopher M. Cunningham 

Asset Management Inventory and Data Collection 2009 Results 

NCHRP (Project 8-36, Task 22) Cambridge Systematics Working Paper #1: Economic Benefits of Transportation Investment 2002 Present

econom

NCHRP (Project 8-36, Task 22) Cambridge Systematics Working Paper #3: Community and Social Benefits of Transportation Investment 2002 Discuss

adds to 

NHTSA 

L. Blincoe, A. Seay, E. Zaloshnja, T.Miller, E. Romano, S.Luchter, R.Spicer 

The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000 2002 Report 

SHRP 2 Charles Fay, Sr. SHRP 2 Roadway Projects - Safety Symposium 2010 (presentation) 2010 This pr

provide

TR News, Number 254 Bradley J. Overturf A Roadway Photolog Goes High-Definition: Connecticut Expands User Network, Realizes Cost Savings 2008 

The Coimage i

comput

traces t

state ap

Transportation Research Record (1719) 

James P. Hall, Tschangho John Kim, Michael I. Darter 

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Geographic Information System Implementation: Illinois Department of Transportation 2000 

Paper psystem the orggreates
30 

Source Author(s) Publication Year 

Transportation Research Record (2160) 

Zongzhi Li, Samuel Labi, Matthew Karlaftis, Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou, Montasir Abbas, Bei Zhou, Sunil Mandanu 

Project-Level Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Approach for Evaluating Highway Segment Safety Hardware Improvements 2010 

Presentsafety himprovinjury, 

TRB Research E-Circular (EC077) James P. Hall Enhancing the Value of Data Programs: A Peer Exchange 2005 Summa

awarenand oth

University of Arkansas Kelvin C.P. Wang, Weiguo Gong, Zhiqiong Hou Networked Sensor System for Automated Data Collection and Analysis 2008 

This reroadwaHighwabased d

accomp

University of South Florida 

Linjun Lu, Jian John Lu, Pei Sung Lin, Zhenyu Wang, Hongyun Chen 

Developing and Interface Between FDOT's Crash Analysis Reporting System and the Safety Analyst 2009 

This reReportiOther d

Invento

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, FHWA 

S.C. Dresley, A. Lacombe Value of Information and Information Services 1998 

This reinformaaccessi

VTT Tiedotteita--Research Notes Maila Herrala The Value of Transport Information 2007 The obj

transpo

Washington State DOT, Transportation Data Office Better Decisions Through Better Data 2007 DiscussOther Industry Sources American Journal of Medicine S.J. Wang, B. Middleton, L.A. Prosser, et.al A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Electronic Medical Records in Primary Care 2003 The pu

implem

American Society of Mechanical Engineers Steve Adam, Joseph T. Hlady Data is an Asset that Should be Managed 2007 

Illustraof this charact

American Statistical Association C. Sims Can we measure the benefits of data programs? 1984 Article Australia New Zealand Land Information Council 

Price Waterhouse Economic Studies & Strategies Unit 

Australian Land and Geographic Data Infrastructure Benefits Study 1995 

Examinaccess 

and primaximi
31 

Source Author(s) Publication Year 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67 E.P. Fenichel, G.J.A. Hansen 

The Opportunity Cost of Information: An economic framework for understanding the balance between assessment and control in sea lamprey management 

2010 

Researcallocatithe rela

associa

treatme

Clinical Trials; London (Periodical) 

Reza Rostami, Meredith Nahm, Carl F. Pieper What can we learn from a decade of database audits? 2009 

ReviewResearcaudits r

Computer Technology Review Fred Moore The Value of Data 2002 FocuseDecision Sciences Institute Grant O. Alexander Development of an Instrument for Measuring Information and Information Technology's Costs and Economic Value 1997 Literatu

informatechnol

Economics Bulletin Daniel Sgroi Irreversible investment and the value of information gathering 2003 This re

irrevers

Fisheries G.J.A. Hansen, M.L. Jones The Value of Information in Fishery Management 2008 

Article informaAuthorpast, anthe valu

Institute for Geoinformation, Technical University Vienna Alenka Krek, Andrew U. Frank The Production of Geographic Information - The Value Tree 2000 

Investiggeograpfixing tvalue p

International Journal of Technology, Policy, and Management 

Pieter W.G. Bots, Fred A. B. Lohman 

Estimating the Added Value of Data Mining: A Study for the Dutch Internal Revenue Service 2003 Addres

measur

International Pipeline Conference 2004 Bruce Dupuis, Jason Humber Pipeline Integrity: Establishing Data Management Value 2004 Paper a

support 

Journal of AHIMA M. Mercer Data warehousing improves care, demonstrates return on investment 2001 Article Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 

Margaret Armstrong, William Bailey, Benoit Couet 

The Option Value of Acquiring Information in an Oilfield Production Enhancement Project 2005 

Article 

analysiadditio

Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 

Susan Griffin, Karl Claxton, Mark Sculpher Decision Analysis for Resource Allocation in Health Care 2008 

Addres

within 

additio
32 

Source Author(s) Publication Year 

Journal of Information Technology 

Bert van Wegen, Robert De Hoog Measuring the Economic Value of Information Systems 1996 

Paper o

activitysystem

Journal of Mechanical Design Transactions of the ASME 

J. M. Ling, J. M. Aughenbaugh, C.J.J Paredis 

Managing the collection of information under uncertainty using information economics 2006 

Introducollecti

of distrcharact

Mining Technology: IMM Transactions Section A Sean Dessureault Justification Techniques for Information Technology Infrastructure in Mining 2004 The Bla

a data w

NASA Airspace Systems Program Thomas B. Sheridan Strategy for Optimum Acquisition of Information 2006 Brief tu

an instr

Nursing Management; Chicago Bernadette M. Billinger Should your data collection expand or shrink? 2000 

Addrescost-effask the 

Pennsylvania State University 

Damon Jones, Brian K. Bumbarger, Mark T. Greenberg, et al 

The Economic Return on PCCD's Investment in Research-based 

Programs: A Cost-Benefit Assessment of Delinquency Prevention in Pennsylvania 

2008 

This re

program(PCCD

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing S. DeBruin, G.J. Hunter Making the Trade-off Between Decision Quality and Information Cost 2003 Paper d

decisiocost-be

Principles of Microeconomics, 2nd edition (McGraw-Hill) 

Robert H. Frank, Ben S. Bernanke The Economics of Information 2003 Chapte

informa

Resources for the Future Molly K. Macauley 

The Value of Information: A Background Paper on Measuring the Contribution of Space-Derived Earth Science Data to National Resource Management 

2005 

Describillustra

data co

Society Stuart Nagel Determining When Data is Worth Gathering 1978 Brief an

it come

STEPHEN (Science & Technology Policy Asian Network) 

M.A.T De Silva Typology of S&T Statistics and Methods for Data Collection for Output and Input Indicators Discuss

(produc

Studies in Health and Technology Informatics 

I. Shabtai, M. Leshno, O. Blondheim, et.al 

The value of information for decision-making in the healthcare 

environment 2007 

Ealuatedecisiodepartm

Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences, Dept. of Forest Resource Management 

Karl Duvemo The Influence of Data Uncertainty on Planning and Decision Processes in Forest Management 2009 Focuse

plannin

The Australian Society for Medical Research Access Economics Exceptional Returns: the Value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia 2003 His res

historicwith hi
33 

Source Author(s) Publication Year 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution R. E. Johannes The Case for Data-less Marine Resource Management: Examples from Tropical Nearshore Finfisheries 1998 Paper d

few res

US Dept. of State Christopher Dauer Insurers uptight about NAIC overhaul of data collection 1995 Insuran

files mo