Background Report

Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support 

the Highway Safety Improvement Program

FHWA-SA-11-39 June 2011

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

ii 

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. 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

iii 

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 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

iv 

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-11-39 

2. Government Accession 

No. 

3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data 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. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) provides information on how safety data should be 

used. However, there are no details on specific data elements that State agencies should be collecting, maintaining, 

and using to support their HSIP and Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). In 2011, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety released a guidance memorandum on the fundamental roadway and traffic 

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

(known as the FDE/HSIP) and on what roadways they should be collected. The purpose of this report is to provide 

background information on why and how the guidance was developed, estimates of the costs of data collection, safety 

analysis tools and methods, and performance measures that should be implemented to achieve quality safety data. 

17. Key Words: 

Safety data, Highway Safety Improvement 

Program, HSIP, roadway data, traffic data, 

intersections, ramps, cost/benefit analysis. 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

32 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

v 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

vi 

Acronyms

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EMS Emergency Medical Services 

FDE/HSIP Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HCM Highway Capacity Manual 

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System 

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 

HSM Highway Safety Manual 

IHSDM Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

LRS Location Referencing System 

MIRE Model Inventory of Roadway Elements 

MIRE MIS MIRE Management Information Systems 

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NHS National Highway System 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

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 

TRCC Traffic Records Coordinating Committee 

TWG Technical Working Group 

U.S. United States 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

vii 

Table of Contents

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

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Use of Safety Data in the HSIP....................................................................................................... 6

Model Inventory of Roadway Elements ......................................................................................... 7

Relational Statewide Location Referencing System ....................................................................... 8

Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP ............................................................................................ 8

Resources on Data Collection Methodologies .............................................................................. 12

Data Collection Costs ................................................................................................................... 13

Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 16

Safety Tools and Methods ............................................................................................................ 16

Highway Safety Manual ........................................................................................................... 17

SafetyAnalyst ............................................................................................................................ 18

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model ............................................................................... 18

AASHTO's NCHRP Series 500 Data and Analysis Guide ....................................................... 19

Performance Measures .................................................................................................................. 19

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 20

References ..................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix A: FDE/HSIP Element Data Dictionary ...................................................................... 23
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

viii 

Table of Tables		

Table 1. FDE/HSIP Elements. ........................................................................................................ 2

Table 2. FDE/HSIP Elements ....................................................................................................... 10

Table 3. Summary of Average Data Collection Costs in Addition to HPMS Requirements (2010 

U.S. Dollars) ................................................................................................................................. 15

Table 4. Data Analysis Tools by Analysis Procedures. ................................................................ 17

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Example of GIS Network in Missouri that Allows for Linkages with Data for Safety 

Analysis...........................................................................................................8 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	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. While crash data have been a consistent element of highway safety 

analysis, in recent years there has been an increased focus on the combination of crash, roadway 

and traffic data to make more precise and prioritized safety decisions. 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). 

A new generation of safety analysis tools and methods has been developed to help identify safety 

issues and provide recommendations for improvements. These safety analysis tools, such as the 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM), SafetyAnalyst, and the Interactive Highway Safety Design 

Model (IHSDM) all require quality roadway, traffic, and crash data to achieve the most accurate 

results. Integrating 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 roadway for all users. 

Title 23 - Code of Federal Regulations, Part 924 on the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(23 CRF 924) provides information on how safety data should be used (1). However, there are 

no details on specific roadway and traffic data elements that State agencies should be collecting, 

maintaining, and using to support their HSIPs and SHSPs. In 2011, the Federal Highway 

Administration (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 HSIP and on what roadways they should be collected. The purpose of this report is 

to provide background information on why and how the guidance was developed, estimates of 

the costs of data collection, safety analysis tools and methods, and performance measures that 

should be considered and implemented to achieve quality safety data. 

At a minimum, States should have a common relational location referencing system (i.e., 

geographic information system, linear referencing system, etc.) for all public roads. With the 

ability to locate crashes, States will be able to identify high crash locations on all public roads in 

the State. As States expand their inventories, this common relational referencing system will 

enable States to link these locations with roadway and traffic data. 

Once a statewide location referencing system is in place, States should move towards collecting 

a set of fundamental roadway inventory data elements necessary to support an HSIP on all public 

roads. Recognizing that this may not be feasible for all States, States should prioritize collecting 

these elements on Federal-aid roads first and then expand to non-Federal-aid roads. Federal-aid 

roads include the National Highway System (NHS) and all functional systems excluding rural 

minor collectors and locals. 

These fundamental data elements for HSIP (FDE/HSIP), as determined by an expert Technical 

Working Group (TWG), are shown in Table 1. 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

2 

Table 1. 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/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). 
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Table 1. 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.

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.

*Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements required on all Federal-aid highways and 

ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all 

functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

These are based on the elements needed to apply the HSM roadway safety management 

procedures (Part B) using network screening analytical tools (such as SafetyAnalyst), are a 

subset of Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE), and duplicates many of the elements 

that States already collect for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) on the full 

extent of Federal-aid roadways.

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. FHWA 

recognizes that many States are developing analysis tools in-house 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 in-house.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Introduction

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

the U.S. Department of Transportation, the total societal cost of crashes exceeds $230 billion 

annually (2). The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005, established the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core Federal-aid program. The overall 

objective of the HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of and the potential for fatalities 

and serious injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads. A major stipulation of the 

program is that “The HSIP shall include a data driven [Strategic Highway Safety Plan] SHSP 

and the resulting implementation through highway safety improvement projects” (1). Safety 

data are not limited to crash data only. A comprehensive traffic records system necessary to 

support a robust safety program includes crash, roadway, traffic, vehicle, driver, citation and 

adjudication, and injury control/emergency medical services (EMS) data.

Title 23 - Code of Federal Regulations, Part 924 on the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(23 CRF 924) provides information on how safety data should be used (1). However, there are 

no details on specific data elements that State agencies should be collecting, maintaining, and 

using to support their HSIPs and SHSPs. In 2011, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Safety released a guidance memorandum on the fundamental roadway and traffic data 

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

their HSIP and on what roadways they should be collected. The purpose of this report is to 

provide background information on why and how the guidance was developed, estimates of the 

costs of data collection, safety analysis tools and methods, and performance measures that should 

be considered and implemented to achieve quality safety data.

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

and safety of roadways. In recent years, there has been an increased focus on the roadway and 

traffic components of traffic records systems. By incorporating roadway and traffic data into 

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

support their HSIP and implement their SHSP.

A new generation of safety analysis tools and methods has been developed to help identify safety 

problems and to determine needed improvements. These safety analysis tools include the 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM), SafetyAnalyst, and the Interactive Highway Safety Design

Model (IHSDM). These tools 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.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Use of Safety Data in the HSIP

The overall objective of the HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and 

serious injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads. 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 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”(1).

The formalized HSIP process consists of three 

major components—planning, 

implementation, and evaluation—and 

addresses the role of safety data in the HSIP.

Additional language from 23 CFR 924 on how 

data are to be used in the HSIP for each of 

these components includes:

§ 924.9 Planning

(a) The HSIP planning process shall incorporate:

(1) A process for collecting and maintaining a record of crash, roadway, traffic and 

vehicle data on all public roads including railway-highway grade crossings inventory 

data that includes, but is not limited to, the characteristics of both highway and train 

traffic.

(2) A process for advancing the State’s capabilities for safety data collection and 

analysis by improving the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, 

and accessibility of the State’s safety data or traffic records.

(3) A process for analyzing available safety data.

§ 924.11 Implementation

(d)...In addition, up to two percent of the section 130 funds apportioned to a State may be 

used for compilation and analysis of safety data for the annual report to the FHWA 

Division Administrator required under § 924.15(a).

§ 924.13 Evaluation.

(a) The HSIP evaluation process shall include the evaluation of the overall HSIP and the 

SHSP. It shall:

(i) Ensure the accuracy and currency of the safety data (1).
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

While 23 CFR 924 provides guidance 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 HSIP and the development and implementation of their

SHSPs.

Model Inventory of Roadway Elements

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

inventory and traffic elements important 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 a standard of what can be considered a good/robust data inventory and helps 

agencies move towards the use of performance measures (which will be discussed in detail in 

subsequent sections).

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. 

Examples of the MIRE data elements include:

• Roadway classification.

• Paved surface characteristics.

• Number and type of travel lanes.

• Shoulder, median, and roadside descriptors.

• Curve and grade information.

• Traffic control devices.

• Intersection features.

• Interchange and ramp descriptors.

• Pedestrian and bicyclist facilities.

• Traffic volumes.

There are many benefits to State and local transportation agencies expanding their inventories 

through the collection of MIRE elements. Having these additional data can help identify where 

the safety problems are, what those problems are, and how best to treat them. The MIRE 

Version 1.0 Report as well as additional information on MIRE, can be found at 

http://www.mireinfo.org.

The FHWA is now engaged in the next step in the MIRE development effort—testing the 

feasibility of a MIRE Management Information System (MIRE MIS). The MIRE MIS effort 

will involve working with pilot agencies to collect MIRE data and incorporate the data into their 
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Figure 1. Example of GIS Network in Missouri that 

Allows for Linkages with Data for Safety Analysis.

safety program. From this effort, FHWA will continue to publish technical guidance in the 

future, related to notable practices in data collection and MIRE MIS implementation.

Relational Statewide Location Referencing System

One of the underlying factors of the MIRE data elements is that they are capable of being linked 

through a common relational location referencing system. A goal for each State would be to 

have such a common relational 

location referencing system (i.e.,

geographic information system, 

linear referencing system, etc.) for 

all public roads. If all crash 

locations are referenced to the 

same system, then the State can 

identify high crash locations on all 

public roads. If inventory data 

elements for the full roadway 

system are also referenced to the 

same system, then the State can 

use the more advanced high-crash 

location methods such as 

SafetyAnalyst.

In most States, development of a common referencing system for all public roads will require 

significant effort and cooperation with local agencies. The Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) requires geographic information system (GIS) based referencing for all roads in 

the Federal-aid system (4). This system includes all roads in all functional classification except 

for rural minor arterials and rural and urban local roads. However, there is significant mileage in 

these three classifications. Some local agencies have developed or are in the process of 

developing their own GIS based referencing system for their roads with inventory data 

referenced to this system. The State may be able to incorporate these referencing systems into 

their own basemap. Once the referencing systems are combined, attribute data for additional 

mileage can be added when either the State or the local agency develops or expands its 

inventory. And, as stated above, this will lead to the ability to link crashes with inventory and 

traffic data, enabling the State to use the more advanced problem identification methods on more 

and more miles of public roads.

Fundamental Data Elements for HSIP

The 23 CFR 924 provides only general guidance on how safety data should be used; it does not 

provide details on specific data elements (1). While MIRE provides a comprehensive listing of 
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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 and local departments of 

transportation (DOTs), particularly highway safety agencies, are facing increasing demands and 

decreasing resources.

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

information gathering sessions and convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) 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. Based on these efforts, a set of elements was 

determined to be the fundamental roadway inventory data elements necessary to support a 

State’s HSIP. This set of data elements is hereafter referred to as the Fundamental Data 

Elements for HSIP (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 2.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Table 2. 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). 
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Table 2. 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.

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.

*Highway Performance Monitoring System 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.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

The TWG determined that a primary goal should be to collect these 38 FDE/HSIP on all public 

roads. However, if a State does not have the resources to undertake the collection of all 

FDE/HSIP on all public roads, it is recommended as a first priority that these elements be 

collected on all Federal-aid highways. Federal-aid highways comprise approximately 25 percent 

of the Nation’s roadways and account for approximately 75 percent of fatalities (5,6). By 

collecting data on Federal-aid highways, States will be targeting the roadways on which a large 

portion of crashes occur.

Once the FDE/HSIP are collected on Federal-aid highways, States should collect the FDE/HSIP 

on non-Federal-aid highways. If collecting these data along all non-Federal-aid highways at one 

time is not feasible, the State should determine a methodology for prioritizing its collection 

efforts, which could be based on the following:

• Urban or rural.

• County/District.

• Functional class.

• Traffic volume.

These are just examples; each State should determine which methodology is most appropriate for 

its individual circumstances. A data dictionary of the elements, including the corresponding 

MIRE element(s), is included in Appendix A.

Resources on Data Collection Methodologies

The FHWA Office of Safety is currently developing several resources that can provide additional 

information and assistance. Through the MIRE initiative, FHWA is releasing a report entitled

Exploring MIRE Element Data Collection Mechanisms (7). This research will provide an 

overview of:

• The MIRE elements States are already collecting.

• Supplemental data sources that could be used to obtain MIRE data elements – including 

pavement management systems, sign management systems, and other asset inventories.

• Information on existing and emerging data collection technologies and their potential for 

use in collecting MIRE data elements (of which the FDE/HSIP are a subset). These 

include satellite imagery, light detection and ranging (LIDAR), and applications of 

keyhole markup language and geobrowsers such as Google Earth and Bing.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

FHWA will also be releasing a MIRE Data Collection 

Manual as a guidebook for use by State and local agencies 

to learn innovative methods for collecting MIRE data. It is 

imperative that the MIRE data elements be collected 

properly and consistently. The MIRE Data Collection 

Manual will describe how to collect and record MIRE data 

elements, and provide a process for post-processing of data.

In addition to these FHWA resources, the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 

released Syntheses 367: Technologies for Improving Safety 

Data, which explores technologies for the acquisition, 

processing, and overall management of crash, roadway 

inventory, and traffic operations data (8). While it is not 

specific to the MIRE elements, there is still information in 

the report that States may find useful.

The report can be found online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_367.pdf.

Data Collection Costs

The FHWA Office of Safety recognizes that collecting additional data elements and 

incorporating them into an existing safety program requires financial resources. States will be 

concerned about the additional cost to collect these 38 FDE/HSIP. Therefore, FHWA conducted 

an analysis to estimate the cost to develop a relational location referencing system and collect the 

FDE/HSIP on all public roads.

The additional costs that States would incur are the costs to collect what is not already being 

collected through HPMS or not already being collected through other efforts. At the time of this 

analysis, 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 (4). 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 12 indicates which of the 38 FDE/HSIP

HPMS full extent elements are.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

A summary of 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 the 

remaining 16 of the total FDE/HSIP are already required for HPMS on Federalaid 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 

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 the 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 indicated they would use digital data collection vans to collect the (nontraffic) 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. A summary of the data collection costs is shown in Table 3.
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Table 3. 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

These costs are based on the results of a market analysis conducted by FHWA on the costs of 

collecting the FDE/HSIP. Additional information on how these costs were calculated is 

available in the FHWA Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program report (9).

States can use these costs to develop a rough estimate of the costs to collect the FDE/HSIP. For 

example, for 100 miles of roadway, where 50 miles are Federal-aid and 50 miles are nonFederal-aid, and where there are 20 intersections and 20 ramps divided evenly among the 

Federal-aid and non Federal-aid roadways, the cost would be $55,900.

This calculation is as follows:

• Cost for location referencing system for 50 miles of non-Federal-aid, given that a GIS 

layer is required for Federal-aid roads for HPMS:

o $40/mile * 50 miles = $2,000

• Cost for condensed list of 22 FDE/HSIP on 50 Federal-aid roadways, given that 16 of the 

FDE/HSIP are required for HPMS on Federal-aid roadways:

o $60/mile * 50 miles = $3,000

o $720/intersection * 10 intersections = $7,200
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

16 

o $500/ramp * 10 ramps = $5,000 

 Cost for complete list on 50 miles of non-Federal-aid roadways: 

o $530/mile * 50 miles = $26,500 

o $720/intersection * 10 intersections = $7,200 

o $500/ramp * 10 ramps =$5,000 

Please note these are conservative estimates that assume there is no existing roadway 

information other than HPMS. Individual estimates would vary by the circumstances in each 

State. FHWA has developed a spreadsheet tool to help States better estimate the cost to collect 

FDE/HSIP. 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. 

Potential Funding Sources

There are several funding sources available to help support the collection of roadway safety data. 

The FHWA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) all have multiple funding mechanisms available 

to support the collection of roadway safety data. 

Through HSIP, FHWA provides federal funding to States for the purpose of reducing traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructurerelated highway safety improvements. Since roadway data are crucial in evaluating 

infrastructure programs, these funds can be used for data collection. 

Each State should contact their FHWA Division Office for additional information on available 

funding sources. Contact information for the FHWA Divisions Offices can be found at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/field.cfm. 

The U.S. DOT Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) website provides information 

on federal funding sources for traffic safety data activities and can be found at 

http://www.dottrcc.gov/funding_sources/. 

The information provided in this section does not imply funding through any one source is 

guaranteed; rather, it presents potential sources of funding that States may be able to utilize to 

improve their data inventories. 

Safety Tools and Methods

A new generation of safety analysis tools and methods have been developed to help identify 

safety issues and provide recommendations for improvements, including the HSM, 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

17 

SafetyAnalyst, IHSDM, and the NCHRP Series 500 Volume 19: A Guide for Collecting and 

Analyzing Safety Highway Safety Data. These safety analysis tools require quality roadway, 

traffic, and crash data to achieve the most accurate results. The FDE/HSIP will help support the 

use of these tools. This section includes an overview of the data requirements for these tools and 

how these tools can help DOTs to support their HSIPs and SHSPs. Table 4 presents an overview 

of the tools and for which data analysis procedures they can be used. 

Table 4. Data Analysis Tools by Analysis Procedures. 

Data Analysis Tools 

Network 

Screening / 

Prioritization 

Countermeasure 

Selection Evaluation 

SafetyAnalyst √ √ √

Highway Safety Manual √ √ √

Interactive Highway Safety 

Design Model -- √ √

NCHRP Series 500 Data and 

Analysis Guide √ √ √

It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive list of available tools. The elements included 

in the FDE/HSIP were selected in part based on the basic data requirements to use these tools. 

However, the FDE/HSIP are not exclusive to these tools. The FDE/HSIP are the basic elements 

that any State should be collecting and using in their safety programs to conduct sophisticated 

safety analysis. FHWA recognizes that many States are developing sophisticated analysis tools 

in-house that will help to support their HSIPs. All States should be moving towards using 

sophisticated analysis tools and having the FDE/HSIP to utilize these tools, regardless of whether 

they are the tools described in this section or they are developed in-house. 

Highway Safety Manual

The HSM provides techniques and methodologies to quantify the safety-related effects of 

transportation decisions, similar to how the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) quantifies 

operational impacts (10). The HSM facilitates roadway planning, design, operations, and 

maintenance decisions based on consideration of their safety impacts. The primary purpose of 

the HSM is the introduction and development of analytical tools for predicting the impact of 

transportation project and program decisions on road safety. Benefits to using the HSM include 

improved decision making and more effective countermeasure selection to reduce the number 

and severity of crashes, as well as cost savings. The target audience of the HSM is any 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

18 

transportation professional, including State and local transportation agency personnel, 

engineering consultants, etc. 

The HSM is divided into four parts: 

 Part A: Introduction, Human Factors, 

and Fundamentals. 

 Part B: Roadway Safety Management 

Process. 

 Part C: Predictive Method. 

 Part D: Crash Modification Factors. 

There are three primary categories of data that are required for the HSM: crash data, roadway 

characteristics data, and traffic data. More information on the HSM can be found at 

http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx. 

SafetyAnalyst and the IHSDM are software implementations of the HSM and are discussed in 

further detail in the subsequent sections. 

SafetyAnalyst

SafetyAnalyst is a software implementation of Part B of the HSM (11). It is a stand-alone set of 

software tools used to identify and manage a system-wide program of site-specific highway 

safety issues and recommended improvements. It uses state-of-the-art safety management 

approaches and incorporates a cost-effective analysis to help guide the decision-making process 

to identify specific safety improvements that involve physical modifications of the highway 

system. SafetyAnalyst is beneficial in helping highway agencies to get the most safety benefit 

from each dollar spent on a project. The software includes six different tools: Network 

Screening, Diagnosis, Countermeasure Selection, Economic Appraisal, Priority Ranking, and 

Countermeasure Evaluation. 

The minimum set of data elements required to use SafetyAnalyst includes the following: 

roadway segment characteristics, intersection characteristics, ramp characteristics, exposure data, 

and crash data. More information on SafetyAnalyst can be found at 

http://www.safetyanalyst.org/. 

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

The IHSDM is a stand-alone collection of software analysis tools used to evaluate the safety and 

operational effects of geometric designs on highways and implements Part C of the HSM (12). 

The IHSDM is a decision-support tool that gives explicit, quantitative evaluations on existing 

and proposed geometric designs. The intended users of the tool include highway project 

managers, designers, and traffic and safety reviewers in State and local highway agencies, and 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

19 

consulting firms. There are six evaluation modules: Policy Review, Crash Prediction, Design 

Consistency, Intersection Review, Traffic Analysis, and Driver/Vehicle. The Crash Prediction 

Module estimates the frequency and severity of crashes that can be expected on a roadway based 

on geometric and traffic conditions. This model can evaluate rural two-lane highways, rural 

multilane highways, and urban and suburban arterials. The benefits of the IHSDM are that the 

results not only help users to make decisions to improve the safety performance of their 

roadways, but the results also justify and defend geometric design decisions. 

Data requirements to use the IHSDM include roadway, traffic, and crash data. Specific data 

requirements will depend on which safety module is used. More information can be found at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/projects/safety/comprehensive/ihsdm/index.cfm. 

AASHTO's NCHRP Series 500 Data and Analysis Guide

Volume 19: A Guide for Collecting and Analyzing Safety Highway Safety Data, part of the 

NCHRP Report 500 Series, is a guide to assist State and local agency users in locating and 

analyzing safety data as part of their safety efforts (13). The purpose of the Guide is to provide a 

basic three-stage procedure for use in developing an emphasis area plan, as well as define datarelated procedures that will guide the user in selecting potential treatments and target strategies. 

At a minimum, crash data are required to develop a safety plan. The guide discusses other data 

that are useful in addition to crash data, providing descriptions of the major data types, and 

where the data might be found if not readily available in the user’s jurisdiction. More 

information on this guide and the other guides in the NCHRP 500 Series can be found at 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx?cid=40. 

Performance Measures

Performance measures are fundamental in helping Federal, State, and local agencies to assess the 

quality of their data systems. As States expand their roadway data inventories by collecting the 

FDE/HSIP, they should review their current performance measures (if any exist) and implement 

additional performance measures to achieve quality data. This should be considered not just for 

roadway data but for all traffic data systems. NHTSA has identified 61 model performance 

measures to assess the core State traffic records data systems. The performance measures assess 

the quality characteristics of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and 

accessibility. 

 Timeliness reflects the span of time between the occurrence of an event and entry of 

information into the appropriate database. 

 Accuracy is the degree to which the data are error-free, satisfy internal consistency 

checks, and do not exist in duplicate within a single database. 

 Completeness reflects the number of records that are missing from the database. 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

20 

 Uniformity reflects the consistency among the files and records in a database. 

 Integration is the ability of records in a database to be linked to a set of records in another 

database. 

 Accessibility reflects the ability of users to successfully obtain desired data (14).

These attributes are based on the core characteristics of data systems and are intended to help 

monitor and improve the quality of data in an agency’s traffic record systems. The NHTSA 

Report entitled Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems (14) documents 

specific performance measures for each of the core traffic safety data systems—crash, vehicle, 

driver, roadway, citation/adjudication, and EMS/injury surveillance. It discusses the key features 

of the model performance measures and the performance measure criteria. Details are included 

on how each of the six performance attributes (timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, 

integration, and accessibility) are measured for the different data systems. Additional 

information can be found at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811441.pdf. 

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 

HSIPs and implement their SHSPs. 

The FHWA understands that States and local DOTs are facing increasing demands and 

decreasing resources. This report provides background information on specific safety data 

elements that are fundamental to support HSIP, resources on how to collect those elements, and 

how much it will cost to collect these data. A new generation of safety analysis tools and 

methods is being developed to help identify safety issues and provide recommendations for 

improvements. These safety analysis tools 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.

This report aims to provide States a framework for moving forward in collecting safety data, 

incorporating them into their HSIPs, and, ultimately, achieving the goal of reducing fatalities and 

serious injuries on the Nation’s roadways. FHWA will continue to work with its partners in 

States, other Federal agencies, and the research community to update the current understanding 

and state of practice as more information is available and better methods are developed. 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

21 

References

1. 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. 

2. Federal Highway Administration, Facts & Statistics. Accessed May 10, 2011, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts_stats/. 

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

Performance Monitoring System, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm. 

5. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2009, Table HM-220, Washington, 

D.C., January 2011. Accessed online June 17, 2011, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/index.cfm. 

6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

Encyclopedia, Washington, D.C. Accessed online June 17, 2011, 

http://www‐fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/. 

7. Malella, et al., MIRE Element Data Collection Mechanisms. Federal Highway 

Administration, publication pending. 

8. Ogle, J.H. Technologies for Improving Safety Data, NCHRP Synthesis 367, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007. 

9. Lefler, N; R. Fiedler; H. McGee; R. Pollack; and J. Miller. Market Analysis of Collecting 

Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to Support the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-11-40, publication pending. 

10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Highway Safety 

Manual, http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/. 

11. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, SafetyAnalyst, 

http://www.safetyanalyst.org/. 

12. Federal Highway Administration, Interactive Highway Safety Design Model,

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/projects/safety/comprehensive/ihsdm/index.cfm. 

13. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Volume 19: A Guide for Collecting 

and Analyzing Safety Highway Safety Data, 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx?cid=40. 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program	

22 

14. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Model Performance Measures for State 

Traffic Records Systems, Report No. DOT HS 811 411, Washington, D.C., February 

2011. 
Background	Report:		Guidance	for	Roadway	Safety	Data	to	Support	the	Highway	Safety	Improvement	Program

23 

Appendix A: FDE/HSIP Element Data Dictionary

FDE/HSIP Elements 

HPMS FE* 

Element 

(Yes/No) 

Definition Correspon

(Page i

Roadway Segment Segment ID Yes Unique segment identifier. 12. Segment Route Name Yes Signed numeric value for the roadway segment. 8. Route NuAlternate Route Name Yes The route or street name, where different from route number. 9. Route/StreRoute Type Yes Federal-aid/National Highway System (NHS) route type. 21. Federal-aArea Type Yes The rural or urban designation based on Census urban boundary and population. 20. Rural/UrDate Opened to Traffic No The date at which the site was opened to traffic. --- Start Location Yes The location of the starting point of the roadway 

segment. 

10. Begin PoDescriptor (1

End Location Yes The location of the ending point of the roadway 

segment. 

11. End Poin(19) 

Segment Length Yes The length of the segment. 13. Segment Segment Direction No Direction of inventory if divided roads are inventoried in each direction. 18. Direction Roadway Class Yes The functional class of the segment. 19. FunctionMedian Type No The type of median present on the segment. 54. Median T
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Access Control Yes The degree of access control. 22. Access Control (25)

Two-Way vs. One-Way 

Operation Yes Indication of whether the segment operates as a one- or 

two-way roadway.

91. One/Two-Way Operations 

(64)

Number of Through 

Lanes Yes The total number of through lanes on the segment. 

This excludes turn lanes and auxiliary lanes.

31. Number of Through Lanes 

(30)

Interchange Influence 

Area on Mainline 

Freeway

No

The value of this item indicates whether or not a 

roadway is within an interchange influence area.

(This can be derived from MIRE Elements 197 & 

201.)

197. Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning Ramp 

Terminal (136)

201. Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (139)

AADT Yes

The average number of vehicles passing through a 

segment from both directions of the mainline route 

for all days of a specified year

79. Annual Average Daily Traffic 

(AADT) (60)

AADT Year Yes Year of AADT. 80. AADT Year (60)

Intersection

Intersection ID No A unique junction identifier. 120. Unique Junction Identifier

(84)

Location No

Location of the center of the junction on the first 

intersecting route (e.g. route-milepost). (This can be 

derived from MIRE Elements 122 & 123.)

122. Location Identifier for Road

1 Crossing Point (85)

123. Location Identifier for Road 

2 Crossing Point (85)

Intersection Type No The type of geometric configuration that best 

describes the intersection/junction.

126. Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (87)

Traffic Control Type No Traffic control present at intersection/junction. 131. Intersection/ Junction Traffic 

Control (93)
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Major Road AADT No The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the 

approach leg of the intersection/junction. 140. Approach AADT (98)

Major Road AADT 

Year

No

The year of the Annual Average Daily Traffic 

(AADT) on the approach leg of the 

intersection/junction.

141. Approach AADT Year (99)

Minor Road AADT No The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the 

approach leg of the intersection/junction. 140. Approach AADT (98)

Minor Road AADT 

Year No

The year of the Annual Average Daily Traffic 

(AADT) on the approach leg of the 

intersection/junction.

141. Approach AADT Year (99)

Intersection Leg ID No A unique identifier for each approach of an 

intersection.

139. Unique Approach Identifier

(98)

Leg Type No

Specifies the major/minor road classification of this 

leg relative to the other legs in the intersection. (This 

can be derived from MIRE Element 140).

140. Approach AADT (98)

Leg Segment ID No A unique identifier for the segment associated with 

this leg. ---

Ramp/Interchange

Ramp ID Yes

An identifier for each ramp that is part of a given 

interchange. This defines which ramp the following 

elements are describing.

186. Unique Ramp Identifier

(129)

Date Opened to Traffic No The date at which the site was opened to traffic. ---

Start Location No

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.

197. Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning Ramp 

Terminal (136)
Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Ramp Type No

Indicates whether the ramp is used to enter or exit a 

freeway, or connect two freeways. (This can be 

derived from MIRE Elements 195 & 199).

195. Roadway Type at Beginning 

Ramp Terminal (135)

199. Roadway Type at Ending 

Ramp Terminal (138)

Ramp/Interchange

Configuration No Describes the characterization of the design of the 

ramp. (This can be derived from MIRE Element 182). 182. Interchange Type (124)

Ramp Length No Length of ramp. 187. Ramp Length (129)

Ramp AADT Yes AADT on ramp. 191. Ramp AADT (133)

Ramp AADT Year No Year of AADT on ramp. 192. Year of Ramp AADT (133)

*Highway Performance Monitoring System 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.