MIRE Fundamental Data Elements 

Cost Benefit Estimation 

FHWA Safety Program
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov 
 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

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. 

i 
 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-SA-16-035 No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

May 2016

MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation 

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Taruna Tayal, Kim Eccles, Miller Cochran, Paul Winn, Matt Albee and Kara 

Peach 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.

VHB 11. Contract or Grant No. 8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700 DTFH61-11-C-00050 Vienna, VA 22182-2626 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety Final Report, March – April 2016 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA 

15. Supplementary Notes

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 make decisions that are fiscally responsible and 

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 collect to support the activities 

conducted under their Highway Safety Improvement Programs. These data are a subset of the Model Inventory of 

Roadway Elements (MIRE), and are known as the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (MIRE FDE). The objective of this 

effort is to conduct an economic analysis of the cost to States and their partners in developing a Statewide linear 

referencing system and collecting the MIRE FDE on all public roadways. This effort also estimated the reduction in 

fatalities and injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio, and a 10:1 ratio of benefits to costs. This report provides the results of 

this effort. 

17. Key Words: 18. Distribution Statement

MIRE FDE, safety data, economic analysis, No restrictions. 

roadway data, traffic data, intersections, ramps. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified page) 57 

Unclassified 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE
 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized 

ii 
MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST -BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

iii
 
MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST -BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
 

Background........................................................................................................1
 

Review of NPRM Comments ............................................................................2
 

Revisions to MIRE FDE.....................................................................................3
 

Objective and Scope .........................................................................................9
 

REVIEW OF RECENT DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS ................................................................10
 

MIRE MIS Project and the Intersection Inventory Collection.....................10
 

LiDAR Collection in Utah................................................................................11
 

Other Vendors..................................................................................................11
 

METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................13
 

Overview and Relation to 2011 and 2013 Analyses ....................................13
 

Roadway Classification ..................................................................................14
 

Data Collection Costs .....................................................................................16
 

Disaggregated Annual Costs.........................................................................24
 

Benefits.............................................................................................................24
 

RESULTS .............................................................................................................................29
 

Costs of Data Collection and Maintenance..................................................29
 

Benefit-Cost Analysis .....................................................................................32
 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................35
 

iv 
MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST -BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

Table 1a. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local Roadway Segments (based 

on functional classification) Paved Roads. ..........................................................................................5
 

Table 1b. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local Intersections (based on 

functional classification) Paved Roads. ................................................................................................6
 

Table 1c. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local Interchange and Ramps 

(based on functional classification) Paved Roads............................................................................7
 

Table 2. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Local (based on functional
 

classification) Paved Roads. .....................................................................................................................8
 

Table 3. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Unpaved Roads..............................................8
 

Table 4. Sliding Scale Cost for LRS Data Collection.................................................................... 12
 

Table 5. Sliding Scale Cost for Data Collection on Non-local paved roads – Surface 

Type and Median........................................................................................................................................ 17
 

Table 6. Sliding Scale Cost for Data Collection on local paved roads – Surface Type 

Only.................................................................................................................................................................. 18
 

Table 7. Cost of Injury Calculation....................................................................................................... 25
 

Table 8. Present Value Cost of Fatalities and Injuries (2014 Dollars)................................... 27
 

Table 9. Accumulation of Benefits. ...................................................................................................... 28
 

Table 10. Net Present Costs of MIRE FDE Data Collection and Maintenance Costs for
 

the 2015-2035 Analysis Period (2014 Dollars) Discounted Seven Percent. ....................... 30
 

Table 11. Annualized Costs of MIRE FDE Data Collection and Maintenance Costs for
 

the 2015-2035 Analysis Period (2014 Dollars) Discounted Seven Percent. ....................... 31
 

Table 12. Estimated Benefits Needed to Achieve Benefit-Cost Ratios of 1:1, and 10:1 

for the 2015-2035 Analysis Period. ..................................................................................................... 34
 

Table 13. Estimated per year Benefits Needed to Achieve Benefit-Cost Ratios of 1:1, 

and 10:1 for the 2015-2035 Analysis Period.................................................................................... 34
 

Appendix A1 a. Cost Inputs and Source - LRS. ............................................................................. 38
 

Appendix A1 b. Cost Inputs and Source - Segments................................................................... 39
 

v 
 

Appendix A1 c. Cost Inputs and Source - Intersections............................................................. 40
 

Appendix A1 d. Cost Inputs and Source - Ramps......................................................................... 41
 

Appendix A1 e. Cost Inputs and Source - Volume........................................................................ 42
 

Appendix A1 f. Cost Inputs and Source - Inventory Maintenance Costs.............................. 43
 

Appendix A1 g. Cost Inputs and Source - Miscellaneous Inputs............................................. 44
 

Appendix A2. Cost of Completing a Linear Referencing System by State. ......................... 45
 

Appendix A3. Cost of Roadway Segment Data Collection by State (in Dollars). .............. 46
 

Appendix A4. Cost of Intersection Data Collection by State. .................................................... 48
 

Appendix A5. Cost of Ramp Data Collection by State................................................................. 49
 

Appendix A6. Cost of Volume Data Collection by State (in Dollars). ..................................... 50
 

Appendix A7. Cost of Data Maintenance by State. ....................................................................... 52
 

Appendix A8. Data Collection Management and Administration Costs................................. 54

Appendix A9. Miscellaneous One Time and Annual Costs........................................................ 55
 

Appendix A10. Net Present Value of Total Data Collection and Maintenance Costs by
 

State for undiscounted, 3.0% and 7.0% discount rates, 2015 - 2036 (2014 Dollars)...... 56
 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

ACRONYMS 

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FDE Fundamental Data Elements 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

GES General Estimate System 

GIS Geographic Information System 

IHSDM Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System 

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 

HSM Highway Safety Manual 

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

LRS Linear Referencing System 

MAIS Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale 

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

MIRE Model Inventory of Roadway Elements 

MIRE FDE Model Inventory of Roadway Elements Fundamental Data Elements 

MIS Management Information System 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation 

NHS National Highway System 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation 

VSL Value of Statistical Life 

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 

vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

INTRODUCTION 

Background 

Recognizing that quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the 

design, operation, and safety of roadways, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

developed guidance for States on implementing their Highway Safety Improvement Programs 

(HSIPs). By incorporating roadway and traffic data into safety analysis procedures, States can 

better identify safety problems and prescribe solutions to support and implement their Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). Furthermore, new safety analysis tools and methods have been 

developed, such as the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and related software, AASHTOWare’s 

Safety AnalystTM, and FHWA’s Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). All these 

tools and methods need quality roadway, traffic, and crash data to achieve the most accurate 

results. Using roadway and traffic data together with crash data will help agencies make 

decisions that are fiscally responsible and improve the safety of the roadways for all users. 

One study on the effectiveness of the HSIP found that the magnitude of States’ fatal crash 

reduction was highly associated with the years of available crash data, prioritizing method, and 

use of roadway inventory data. States that used detailed roadway inventory data combined 

with the empirical Bayes method in network screening and prioritization for consideration in 

the HSIP had the greatest reductions. 

FHWA’s Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Version 1.0 provides a recommended listing 

of 202 roadway inventory and traffic elements critical to safety management.

(1) While all of the 

MIRE elements are important, it may not be feasible for States to collect and integrate all of the 

elements into their HSIP at the same time. In 2011, FHWA identified a subset of these 

elements that are critical for safety analysis. These elements, known at the time as the 

Fundamental Data Elements (FDE), are identified and described in the Background Report: 

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

Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program.

(3,4) This set is subsequently referred to as the 2011 FDE. 

In 2011, FHWA published the Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to 

Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

(2) The report explored the costs of collecting 

the 2011 FDE. The analysis developed cost estimates for collecting these data in small, 

medium, and large States. Cost effectiveness analysis was used to determine the number of 

fatalities and injuries that would need to be reduced to justify the costs of the data collection. 

The report represented the best available information on the cost of collecting these data 

elements at the time it was developed. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

In July of 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was passed. This 

transportation funding legislation required the Secretary to establish a subset of MIRE elements 

that are useful for roadway inventory data. The MAP-21 Guidance on State Safety Data Systems 

provides information on the set of roadway and traffic data elements that fundamentally 

support a State’s HSIP, and therefore, should be collected on all public roads.

(5) This guidance 

supersedes the Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to 

Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program and the 2011 FDE.

(3) This set of elements— 

herein referred to as the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (MIRE FDE)—included segment, 

intersection, and ramp data elements which 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. The MIRE FDE were based on the elements needed to apply the HSM roadway safety 

management (Part B) procedures using network screening and analytical tools, are a subset of 

MIRE, and are equivalent to some Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) full extent 

elements that States submit for Federal-aid highways. The MIRE FDE were divided into a full 

set of MIRE FDEs and a reduced set of MIRE FDEs for roads with an annual average daily traffic 

(AADT) less than 400 vehicles per day. 

In addition to collecting the MIRE FDE, States should also have a linear referencing system 

(LRS) for all public roads. The FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information and Office of 

Planning, Environment, and Realty issued the Memorandum on Geospatial Network for All Public 

Roads on August 7, 2012, which identified an HPMS requirement for States to update their LRS 

to include all public roadways within the State by June 15, 2014.(6) This LRS will enable States to 

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

additional data, such as roadway and traffic data, should be linkable by LRS geolocation. 

In March of 2013, a cost benefit estimation report called MIRE Fundamental Data Elements CostBenefit Estimation documented an economic analysis of the cost to States in collecting these data 

(LRS and FDE), the reduction in fatalities, and the number of injuries that would push the 

benefits to cost ratio beyond 1:1 and a 2:1.(16) The report served as the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the MIRE FDE portion of the 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the 

HSIP (Docket No. FHWA-2013-0019). 

Review of NPRM Comments 

Numerous agencies commented on the NPRM. Specifically, American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and many State Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs) provided comments on the NPRM that relate directly to the 2013 

MIRE FDE economic analysis. The following key themes were identified after careful review of 

all comments: 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

•	 Twenty-four States said the costs were underestimated (15 provided alternative cost 

estimates). 

•	 Fourteen States expressed interest in flexibility to estimate AADT on low-volume 

roads. 

•	 Eleven States mentioned that FHWA should limit which local, rural, or low-volume 

roads need to have data collection. 

•	 Eighteen States noted that a five-year implementation timeframe is too low: ten States 

recommend a ten-year timeframe and several simply desired more than five years. 

•	 Ten States requested that unpaved/gravel roads be excluded. 

•	 Eight States expressed that the Federal government should collect data for roads on 

Federal lands directly from the managing Federal agency. 

•	 Five States and AASHTO commented that too much data is being requested on 

intersections. 

Revisions to MIRE FDE 

Based on the NPRM comments, FHWA revised the MIRE FDE and created three categories of 

MIRE FDEs. The categories were established based on the functional classification and surface 

type, rather than AADT. Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the MIRE FDE in the HSIP Final Rule. 

Table 1 includes non-local (based on functional classification) paved roadways. Non-local 

functional classifications include the following categories: 

•	 Interstate. 

•	 Other Freeways and Expressways. 

•	 Other Principal Arterial. 

•	 Minor Arterial. 

•	 Major Collector. 

•	 Minor Collector. 

Table 1 is divided into three tables. Table 1a provides the description of the MIRE FDE to be 

collected for roadway segments, Table 1b provides the description of the MIRE FDE to be 

3
 
 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

collected for intersections and Table 1c provides the description of the MIRE FDE to be 

collected for interchange/ramps. 

Table 2 includes the MIRE FDE for local (based on functional classification) paved roadways. 

Table 3 includes the MIRE FDE for all unpaved roadways. 

4
 
 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 1a. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local Roadway Segments 

(based on functional classification) Paved Roads. 

FDE (MIRE Number)^ Definition 

Roadway Segment 

Segment Identifier (12) Unique segment identifier. 

Route Number (8)0 Signed numeric value for the roadway segment. 

Route/Street Name (9)0 The route or street name, where different from route number. 

Federal-aid/ Route Type (21)* Federal-aid/National Highway System (NHS) route type. 

Rural/Urban Designation (20)* The rural or urban designation based on Census urban boundary 

and population. 

Surface Type (23) The surface type of the segment. 

Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) The location of the starting point of the roadway segment. 

End Point Segment Descriptor (11) The location of the ending point of the roadway segment. 

Segment Length (13) The length of the segment. 

Direction of Inventory (18) Direction of inventory if divided roads are inventoried in each 

direction. 

Functional Class (19)* The functional class of the segment. 

Median Type (54) The type of median present on the segment. 

Access Control (22)† The degree of access control. 

One/Two-Way Operations (91)* Indication of whether the segment operates as a one- or two-way 

roadway. 

Number of Through Lanes (31)* The total number of through lanes on the segment. This excludes 

turn lanes and auxiliary lanes. 

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) 

(79)* 

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 (80) Year of AADT. 

Type of Government Ownership (4)* Type of governmental ownership. 

^ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements – MIRE Version 1.0 (1). 

* 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.
 

0 HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, and Principal Arterials, and Minor Arterials.
 

† HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, and Principal Arterials
 

5
 
 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 1b. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local Intersections (based on 

functional classification) Paved Roads. 

FDE (MIRE Number)^ Definition 

Intersection 

Unique Junction Identifier (120) A unique junction identifier. 

Location Identifier for Road 1 

Crossing Point (122) 

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

(e.g. route-milepost). 

Location Identifier for Road 2 

Crossing Point (123) 

Location of the center of the junction on the second intersecting 

route (e.g. route-milepost). Not applicable if intersecting route is 

not an inventoried road (i.e., a railroad or bicycle path). 

Intersection/Junction Geometry (126) The type of geometric configuration that best describes the 

intersection/junction. 

Intersection/Junction Traffic Control 

(131) Traffic control present at intersection/junction. 

AADT (79) [for Each Intersecting 

Road] The AADT on the approach leg of the intersection/junction. 

AADT Year (80) [for Each 

Intersecting Road] 

The year of the AADT on the approach leg of the 

intersection/junction. 

Unique Approach Identifier (139) A unique identifier for each approach of an intersection. 

^ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements – MIRE Version 1.0 (1). 

* 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.
 

0 HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, and Principal Arterials, and Minor Arterials.
 

† HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, and Principal Arterials
 

6
 
 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 1c. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local Interchange and Ramps 

(based on functional classification) Paved Roads. 

FDE (MIRE Number)^ Definition 

Interchange/Ramp 

Unique Interchange Identifier (178) A unique identifier for each interchange. 

Location Identifier for Roadway at 

Beginning Ramp Terminal (197) 

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. 

Location Identifier for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp Terminal (201) 

Location on the roadway at the ending ramp terminal (e.g. routemilepost for that roadway) if the ramp connects with a roadway at 

that point. 

Ramp Length (187) Length of ramp. 

Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp 

Terminal (195) 

A ramp is described by a beginning and ending ramp terminal in the 

direction of ramp traffic flow or the direction of inventory. This 

element describes the type of roadway intersecting with the ramp 

at the beginning terminal. 

Roadway Type at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (199) 

A ramp is described by a beginning and ending ramp terminal in the 

direction of inventory. This element describes the type of roadway 

intersecting with the ramp at the ending terminal. 

Interchange Type (182) Type of interchange. 

Ramp AADT (191)* AADT on ramp. 

Year of Ramp AADT (192) Year of AADT on ramp. 

Functional Class (19)* The functional class of the segment. 

Type of Government Ownership (4)* Type of governmental ownership. 

^ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements – MIRE Version 1.0 (1). 

* 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.
 

0 HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, and Principal Arterials, and Minor Arterials.
 

† HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, and Principal Arterials
 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 2. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Local (based on functional 

classification) Paved Roads. 

FDE (MIRE Number)^ Definition 

Roadway Segment 

Segment Identifier (12) Unique segment identifier. 

Functional Class (19)* The functional class of the segment. 

Surface Type (23) The surface type of the segment. 

Type of Government Ownership (4)* Type of governmental ownership. 

Number of Through Lanes (31)* The total number of through lanes on the segment. This 

excludes turn lanes and auxiliary lanes. 

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) 

(79)* 

The average number of vehicles passing through a segment 

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

specified year. 

Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) The location of the starting point of the roadway segment. 

End Point Segment Descriptor (11) The location of the ending point of the roadway segment. 

Rural/Urban Designation (20)* The rural or urban designation based on Census urban 

boundary and population. 

^ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements – MIRE Version 1.0 (1). 

* 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 local roads. 

Table 3. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Unpaved Roads 

FDE (MIRE Number)^ Definition 

Roadway Segment 

Segment Identifier (12) Unique segment identifier. 

Functional Class (19)* The functional class of the segment. 

Type of Government Ownership (4)* Type of governmental ownership. 

Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) The location of the starting point of the roadway segment. 

End Point Segment Descriptor (11) The location of the ending point of the roadway segment. 

^ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements – MIRE Version 1.0 (1). 

* 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 local roads. 

8
 
 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Objective and Scope 

The objective of this effort is to estimate the potential costs for States and their partners to 

develop a Statewide LRS and collect the revised MIRE FDE on all public roadways. The 

expected benefit 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 analysis builds on the 2013 

report, MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation by updating the values 

needed to determine the costs and benefits of collecting the MIRE FDE (slightly revised from 

the NPRM), revising the methodology used previously to incorporate more recent data and 

systems, and adjusting the results accordingly to reflect these changes. (16) 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

REVIEW OF RECENT DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
 

The market analysis report for the 2011 FDE relied solely on vendor information to determine 

data collection costs.(2) Since that time, a number of studies have been conducted that evaluate 

data collection methods in an effort to obtain quality data that are the foundation for making 

important decisions regarding the design, operation, and safety of roadways. These efforts 

included the MIRE Management Information System (MIRE MIS) Lead Agency Program 

intersection inventory collection in New Hampshire and Washington State—a task of the MIRE 

MIS project—and the deployment of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology in Utah.

(7,8) 

A review of these efforts was included in the 2013 analysis report upon which this report is 

based.(16) The following section updates that review with additional information. 

MIRE MIS Project and the Intersection Inventory Collection 

The objective of the MIRE MIS project was to test the feasibility of converting the MIRE listing 

into an MIS. This was done through the exploration, development, and documentation of 

mechanisms for data collection; processes for data handling and storage; details of data file 

structure; methods to assure the integration of MIRE data with crash data and other data types; 

and performance metrics to assess and assure MIRE data quality and MIS performance. 

The exploration of the mechanism for collecting MIRE data was done through three major tasks 

including: a pilot data collection effort where MIRE data were collected in two States (the MIRE 

MIS Lead Agency Program intersection inventory collection in New Hampshire and Washington 

State); a white paper that explores the use of collective information for transportation safety 

data; and development of a MIRE data collection guidebook. The Lead Agency Program in New 

Hampshire and Washington State are particularly relevant to this task. 

The primary objective of the Lead Agency Program was to assist volunteer transportation 

agencies to collect, store, and maintain MIRE data and to incorporate those data into their 

safety programs. Using an application process, FHWA selected the New Hampshire 

Department of Transportation (NHDOT) and the Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) as Lead Agencies to participate in the MIRE MIS effort. The second 

objective of the Lead Agency Program was to determine the level of effort and resources 

necessary to achieve these goals. 

Both NHDOT and WSDOT requested an intersection inventory for use in AASHTOWare 

Safety AnalystTM, but with slightly different variables. Having both agencies select similar 

elements provided the project team an opportunity to compare different data collection 

methodologies. The project team developed two different methods to collect these data 

elements: one set of simplified tools based on a geographic information system (GIS) platform 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

(for NHDOT), and a more complex automated extraction tool based on proprietary software 

(for WSDOT). The data collection for both States was done in-office using information from 

available sources such as aerials, Google Street View, and video logs to populate the data 

elements. 

The rate of data collection for New Hampshire was approximately nine minutes per 

intersection compared to three minutes per intersection for Washington State. The rate of 

collection without speed limits is estimated to be approximately two minutes per intersection. 

Therefore, the New Hampshire collection rate was higher due to the additional time it took to 

collect speed limits on each approach to the intersection. 

LiDAR Collection in Utah 

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is employing the LiDAR technology as a 

groundbreaking data collection project. UDOT has recently entered into a contract to gather, 

identify, and process a wide variety of roadway assets along its entire 6,000-plus center lane 

miles of State route and interstates.

(9) One of the key goals of the project is to “deploy state of 

the art collection methods to improve and develop rigorous safety, maintenance, and 

preservation programs.” 

The first phase of the project—data collection— is complete. Initial data collection was 

conducted in 2012, with plans for an update in 2014. The second phase— post processing and 

data delivery—is currently underway. 

The data collected include roadway distress data, pavement surfaces, lane miles, signs, right-ofway images, vertical clearances, and more. Each of these categories is further subdivided to 

provide additional detail. Costs associated with data collection of roadway conditions was 

approximately $26 per mile, $30 per mile with geolocating roadways, and $95 per mile with 

roadway asset data collection.

(8) 

Other Vendors 

Many agencies use other non-LiDAR data collection vendors to collect data including traffic 

volumes. The market analysis report for the 2011 FDE summarized cost data provided by 12 

data collection vendors from around the country.(2) Costs were obtained from the vendors on 

a per-mile basis along segments, and a per-location basis for intersections and ramps. For the 

2014 analysis, the cost for developing an LRS is estimated per mile divided into five categories 

based on the number of miles of LRS data to be collected. The cost per mile incorporates 

some economies of scale. That is, the cost per mile decreases as the total mileage requiring 

field collection increases. For traffic counts on segments, an estimate of one count per mile is 

11
 
 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

used to generate a per mile cost. These costs, presented in Table 4, included data collection 

and formatting for integration into a State’s existing system. 

Table 4. Sliding Scale Cost for LRS Data Collection. 

Cost to Collect 

($/mile) Description 

$30.00 $30 per mile cost based on 2012 Utah LiDAR project for 

State where total mileage for LRS is >10,001 miles. 

$45.00 For State where total mileage for LRS is 5,001-10,000 miles. 

$55.00 For State where total mileage for LRS is 3,001 -5,001 miles. 

$70.00 For State where total mileage for LRS is 1,001-3,000 miles. 

$90.00 For State where total mileage for LRS is < 1,000 miles. 

The majority of vendors estimated that digital data collection vans would be used to collect the 

roadway inventory data. Vendors estimated traffic count data costs based on 48-hour 

classification counts for segment and ramp traffic data and peak hour manual counts for 

intersections. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

METHODOLOGY 

Overview and Relation to 2011 and 2013 Analyses 

The market analysis report for the 2011 FDE included an extensive literature review that 

revealed no established methodologies to estimate the benefit of collecting roadway data 

elements for safety.

(2) Additionally, no State was determined to already collect the exact list of 

MIRE FDE on all public roadways within the State. Therefore, a cost effectiveness analysis was 

conducted based on estimated costs of collecting data for a small, medium, and large State. 

As with the previous analysis, a cost effectiveness analysis approach was used for the 2013 

analysis.

(16) However, the general approach was modified to estimate the cost for each State 

based on the best available estimates for the number of lane miles, intersections, and ramps. 

The analysis used costs for data collection from the several sources including the MIRE MIS 

intersection inventory, Utah’s LiDAR experience, and vendors’ estimates. These sources 

represented potential methodologies for data collection and were selected for the analysis 

based on the availability of cost information. 

The analysis also considered the extent of data collection already being conducted by the 

States, and developed a national cost estimate. The cost estimations used in that analysis 

reflected the additional costs that States would incur based on what was not already being 

collected through HPMS and through other efforts. During 2011-2012, FHWA conducted a 

State Data Capabilities Assessment for each State on the collection, management, and use of 

roadway safety data.

(10) States provided information about their practices on State and NonState roads, with most responses for Non-State roads limited to Federal-aid roads. The 

analysis used the results of this assessment to determine the cost to collect the additional MIRE 

FDEs for each State and the District of Columbia. 

The cost estimation also included the cost to extend existing LRS to all public roads, consistent 

with the HPMS requirements that States submit their LRS covering all public roadways for their 

HPMS submittal of 2013 data due June 15, 2014.

(6) 

The 2014 economic analysis employs a cost effectiveness methodology with a similar structure 

as the 2013 analysis. This analysis included the HSIP Final Rule FDEs as presented in Tables 1a, 

1b, 1c, 2, and 3. Updated values were used for several elements such as number of 

intersections, extent of data already collected by the State, extent of LRS by State, and revised 

cost estimates. In addition, the 2014 analysis considers miscellaneous costs including the cost 

associated with developing an implementation plan, local partner liaisons, formatting and 

analyzing enhanced data, and desktop and web application. 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roadway Segments 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

The current analysis continues to acknowledge that some MIRE FDE are already collected for 

HPMS. Specifically, 13 of the 37 MIRE FDE for non-local paved roadways are also already 

collected for the HPMS and therefore, the costs to collect them are not included in the analysis. 

Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 and 3 indicate which of the 37 MIRE FDEs are HPMS elements. 

The following sections explain the numerous sources of data used for this analysis and 

considerations for each. 

Roadway Classification 

In order to calculate the amount of roadways requiring data collection, each State’s roadways 

segments were divided into various categories based on functional classification (non-local and 

local), ownership (state and non-state), and surface type (paved and unpaved) in order to apply 

the associated costs. To calculate the data collection costs for each State, the roadway mileage 

are determined for: 

•	 State roadways – Roadways that are maintained by the State, including both nationallynumbered highways and un-numbered State highways, arterials and collectors. 

•	 Federal-aid Non-State roadways - Roadways that are not maintained by the State and 

eligible for Federal-aid funding, this includes arterials and collectors. 

•	 Non-Federal-aid Non-State roadways - Roadways that are not maintained by the State 

and not eligible for Federal–aid funding, this includes arterials and collectors. 

•	 Local non-State roadways - Local roadways (based on functional classification) that are 

not maintained by the State. 

•	 Local State roadways - Local roadways (based on functional classification) that are 

maintained by the State. 

•	 State unpaved roads – State-maintained unpaved roads. 

•	 All other unpaved roads. 

Intersections were calculated only for those locations where a non-local paved road intersects 

with non-local paved road (non-local/non-local) or a non-local paved road intersects with a 

local roadway (non-local/ local). All ramps to access controlled roadways including interstates, 

expressways, and other freeways were included in the ramps. 

The analysis used 2012 mileage data from the FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information 

Highway Statistics series to determine the ownership of the roadways for each State, and the 

urban and rural mileage.

(11) The analysis also used FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information 

14
 
 

 

Intersections 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ramps 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Highway Statistics series to determine the miles by surface type for each State and Federal-aid 

mileage for each State by ownership.(12, 13) 

The number of intersections was known for four States. Estimates were made for the 

remaining 46 States, using the U.S. Census 2014 TIGER/line Roads National Geodatabase to 

estimate the total roadway miles and the total number of intersections in each State. This 

estimate is based on the miles of GIS links (roads) and the nodes (intersections) between those 

links in the public roads layer for a State. This is a simple estimate but it provides an estimate 

of the relative number of intersections per mile. The total miles of links in each State was 

compared to the total road miles reported in the HPMS system, which is considered more 

accurate. The proportion of the GIS estimate of miles to the HPMS reported miles was 

calculated. If the proportion was over 1.0, the GIS system overestimated the number of miles 

and therefore also overestimated the number of intersections. If the proportion was under 1.0, 

it underestimated. This proportion was applied to the number of intersections estimated from 

the GIS system to correct this over- or underestimation. For example, from the GIS system, 

State A has 250,000 miles of roads and 140,000 intersections. In the HPMS data, the State is 

reported to have 280,000 miles of roads. The GIS system underestimated the miles of roads by 

just over 10 percent. The proportion of the miles from the HPMS system and the miles from 

the GIS system is 1.12 (280,000/250,000). The proportion is multiplied by the number of 

intersections from the GIS system (140,000 X 1.12) and the revised estimate is 157,000. This 

estimate is used in the analysis. 

The number of ramps is known for six States. Total number of ramps was estimated for the 

remaining 44 States, using the U.S. Census 2014 TIGER/line Roads National Geodatabase to 

estimate the number of interchanges in each State. This number is fairly reliable for each State 

as interchanges are major features in the GIS system. However, the number of individual ramps 

was needed, not interchanges. Therefore, the number of ramps was estimated from the 

number of interchanges. 

A proportion of the number of interchanges to ramps was calculated for the six States where 

the number of ramps is known. This ratio of ramps to interchanges was approximately 2.8 for 

5 of the 6 States and is therefore a consistent relationship between ramps and interchanges. 

This ratio was applied to the number of interchanges in each State to estimate the number of 

ramps. For example, from the GIS system, State A has 200 interchanges. The number of ramps 

in State A was estimated as 560 ramps (2.8 X 200). 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linear Referencing System 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Data Collection Costs 

The costs for each State to collect the additional MIRE FDE are aggregated into eight 

categories: 

1.	 Costs to develop a common LRS.

2.	 Costs to collect the MIRE FDE elements for roadway segments.

3.	 Costs to collect the MIRE FDE elements for intersections.

4.	 Costs to collect the MIRE FDE elements for ramps.

5.	 Cost to collect volume data.

6.	 Cost to manage and administer data collection efforts.

7.	 Cost to maintain the data annually.

8.	 Miscellaneous costs including one-time cost of developing an implementation plan; and

all annual ongoing costs of local agency partner liaison, formatting and analyzing

enhanced data and desktop and web application.

Each of the eight categories are described in the following sections. Additionally, tables in 

Appendix A1 a provides a detailed listing of the specific cost inputs and the source of the 

inputs for each of the categories. 

An LRS is required for all public roadways as part of the States’ HPMS submittal of 2013 data, 

which was due June 15, 2014. Currently, the completeness of the roadway network for each 

State varies. Only the costs of adding roadways not currently in the network are considered in 

this analysis. The analysis assumed that all Federal-aid roadways have already been 

incorporated into the system, and consequently no additional cost will be incurred. For the 

non-Federal-aid roadways, the percentage of missing roads was based on an assessment of the 

mileage reported to HPMS by June 2014. This information is supplemented with information 

from the State Data Capabilities Assessment.

(10) The cost per mile to include these additional 

roads was assumed to be on a sliding scale, as presented in Table 4, based on the total number 

of mileage to be collected by each State. This cost is based on the Utah LiDAR program and 

the market analysis report for the 2011 FDE.(8,2) The estimated cost per State to complete an 

LRS is provided in Appendix A2. A five percent cost was added to LRS data collection costs for 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). 

16
 
 

Roadway Segments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

The MIRE FDE includes 18 roadway segment elements for non-local paved roads, two of which 

involve collecting volumes (AADT and AADT year). There are nine MIRE FDE roadway 

segment elements for local paved roads; including one AADT and five MIRE FDE roadway 

segment elements for unpaved roads. 

Non-Local Paved Roadways 

As part of HPMS reporting requirements for Federal-aid roadways, States already collect many 

of the MIRE FDE for State-maintained roadways. The additional non-HPMS elements include 

surface type, direction of inventory, median type, begin point segment descriptor, end point segment 

descriptor, segment length, and AADT year. Several elements are only reported to HPMS for 

some functional classes. For example, access control is collected on NHS roadways, interstates, 

freeways and expressways, and principal arterials but not for minor arterials and minor or 

major collectors. 

Field data collection is needed for surface type and median type. Based on the Utah LiDAR 

project and the market analysis report for the 2011 FDE , the field cost to collect these 

elements will vary based on the total mileage of field data collection required for all roads in the 

State.

(2, 8) Additionally, a base mobilization fee of $265,000 will be incurred to mobilize the data 

collection equipment in each State. Table 5 shows the breakdown of data collection cost per 

mile based on total miles. 

Table 5. Sliding Scale Cost for Data Collection on Non-local paved roads – Surface 

Type and Median. 

Cost to Collect 

($/mile) Description 

$ 30.00 $30 per mile cost based on 2012 Utah LiDAR project for State 

where total mileage for data collection is >10,001 miles. 

$

$

$

$

45.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is 5,001-10,000 miles. 

55.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is 3,001 - 5,001 miles. 

70.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is 1,001-3,000 miles. 

90.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is < 1,000 miles. 

Access control can be collected in the office utilizing aerial images or as-built plans. The costs 

associated with this effort were estimated to be $3.10 per mile (10 miles per hour at $31 per 

hour). This also includes the cost to collect the remaining segment identifiers. The analysis 

considers identifiers to be basic location and administrative elements (e.g., segment identifier, 

direction of inventory). This analysis also assumed that a State may have FDE data for some 

roadways in an existing roadway inventory system that requires effort to extract the data. A 

flat cost of $40,000 per State was included for converting the roadway inventory data from an 

17
 
 

Local Paved Roadways 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

existing system to the all-public roads LRS, assuming the LRS is GIS-based or similar and 

conversion of the data would be required. 

In order to calculate the amount of local paved roadways requiring data collection based on the 

State Data Capabilities Assessment, local paved roads were subdivided into State and nonState-maintained roads by Federal-aid and non-Federal aid. As mentioned above, some States 

already collect many of the MIRE FDE for State-maintained Federal aid roadways. Some States 

collect at least a subset of the MIRE FDE on non-Federal-aid roadways, based on the State Data 

Capabilities Assessment.

(10) To account for the additional costs to collect the MIRE FDE, only 

those elements not currently collected by the States were considered. This was done 

separately for each State based on their self-reported extent of collection from the State Data 

Capabilities Assessment. Where a partial number of elements were collected, the cost 

associated with the missing elements was derived by reducing the overall cost proportionally 

(missing elements/total elements). 

Field data collection is needed for surface type. Based on the Utah LiDAR project and the 

market analysis report for the 2011 FDE, the field cost to collect these elements will vary based 

on the total mileage of field data collection required for all roads in the State.

(2, 8) 

Table 6 shows the breakdown of data collection cost per mile based on total miles. 

Table 6. Sliding Scale Cost for Data Collection on local paved roads – Surface Type 

Only. 

Cost to Collect 

($/mile) Description 

$ 27.00 $26 per mile cost based on 2012 Utah LiDAR project for State 

where total mileage for data collection is >10,001 miles. 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

41.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is 5,001-10000 miles. 

50.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is 3,001 -5,001 miles. 

63.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is 1,001-3,000 miles. 

81.00 For State where total mileage for data collection is < 1,000 miles. 

The costs associated with in office effort are estimated to be $3.1 per mile (10 miles per hour 

at $31 per hour). This also includes the cost to collect the remaining identifiers. The analysis 

considers identifiers to be basic location and administrative elements (e.g., segment identifier, 

direction of inventory). 

18
 
 

Unpaved Roadways 

 

 

 

 

 

Intersections 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

For unpaved roads, the MIRE FDE roadway segment element for functional classification can be 

collected in the office using aerial images or as-built plans. The office data collection for this 

category varies by rural and urban roadways. The collection costs for urban roadways was 

estimated to be $2.40 per mile (25 miles per hour at $60 per hour) and $0.75 per mile for rural 

roadways (80 miles per hour at $60 per hour). Urban roadways were estimated to cost more 

due to the number of links in GIS for urban areas compared to rural areas (e.g., longer 

segments in rural areas mean less links than in urban areas). 

A five percent cost was added to segment data collection costs for QA/QC which is applied to 

the total cost of segment data collection for all road classes. Appendix A3 provides the cost 

breakdown for roadway segment data collection on State and non-State maintained non-local 

paved, local paved, and unpaved roads for each State. 

The MIRE FDE includes eight intersection elements for non-local paved roadways, two of which 

involve traffic volumes (AADT and AADT year). 

The MIRE FDE for intersections can be divided into the following categories: 

•	 MIRE FDE Identifiers – unique junction identifier, location identifier for road one

crossing point, location identifier for road two crossing point, and unique approach

identifier.

•	 MIR FDE Roadway Characteristics – intersection/junction geometry and

intersection/junction traffic control. Volume data (the costs of this item are described

in a subsequent section).

States will most efficiently achieve the collection of MIRE FDE identifiers by running a model 

which imports the intersections’ attributes from existing roadway information. The presence of 

an LRS is a pre-requisite for running the model. While many States already have this system in 

place, it was assumed that all States will have it by the time they are ready to collect the 

intersection elements. Based on the MIRE MIS intersection inventory conducted for New 

Hampshire, the estimated cost to run this model is a flat fee of $12,480 (120 hours at 

$104/hour).

(7) Since this is not a per element cost, the flat cost was applied to States that are 

missing any of the intersection identifiers on non-local paved roads. 

Based on the findings of the MIRE MIS intersection inventory effort, the estimated costs to 

collect the intersection features were $1.023 per intersection (2 minutes per intersection at 

$31 per hour). Similar to the roadway segments, some States already collect MIRE FDE for 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

Ramps 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volume Data 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

intersections. In States where data were already available for some elements, the cost 

associated with the missing elements was derived by reducing the overall cost proportionally 

(number of elements that require data collection/total elements). 

A five percent cost was added to intersection data collection for QA/QC which was applied to 

the total cost of intersection data collection. The cost per state of intersection data collection 

is provided in Appendix A4. 

The MIRE FDE includes 11 ramp elements, including two volume-related elements and two 

elements already collected under HPMS. Similar to intersections, States will most efficiently 

collect these elements by running a model to import the ramps’ identifiers from existing 

roadway data. The MIRE FDE identifiers for ramps are unique interchange identifier, location 

identifier for roadway at beginning ramp terminal, year of ramp AADT, and location identifier for 

roadway at ending ramp terminal. The estimated cost to run the model is $8,320 (80 hours at 

$104/hour) and can only be run once an LRS is in place. Since this is not a per element cost, 

the flat cost was applied to States that are missing any of the ramp identifiers on State or nonState roads. 

The remaining four roadway characteristics—ramp length, roadway type at beginning and ending 

ramp termini, and interchange type—can be collected in the office through aerials and as-built 

plans. The estimated cost to collect this information is $4.03 per ramp (eight minutes per ramp 

at $31 per hour). Similar to the intersections, some States already collect MIRE FDE for ramps. 

In States where data are already available for some elements, the cost associated with the 

missing elements was derived by reducing the overall cost proportionally (number of elements 

that require data collection/total elements). 

A five percent cost was added to ramp data collection for QA/QC which is applied to the total 

cost of ramp data collection. Appendix A5 provides the cost breakdown for ramp data 

collection for each State. 

The MIRE FDE includes volume data in the form of AADT and the year of the AADT collection 

for segments. For non-local paved roadways only, the MIRE FDE includes volume data for 

ramps and for all intersecting roadways at intersections. Volumes are already collected under 

HPMS for Federal-aid roadway segments and ramps. The method used to estimate the volume 

costs is explained in the following sections. 

20
 
 

Roadway Segments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intersections 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

As previously mentioned, HPMS requires AADT reporting on all Federal-aid State roadways. 

Thus, no additional volume collection costs are associated with these roads. 

As part of the 2013 analysis, several States were contacted to determine State practices for 

volume data collection for non-Federal-aid roads.

(16) Colorado, Missouri, and Ohio reported 

that they collect volume data on all State roads, including non-Federal-aid locations. Based on 

these responses, the analysis assumed volume data are collected on 99 percent of non-Federalaid State-maintained roadways. The remaining one percent of non-Federal-aid State-maintained 

roadways will require volume data collection to account for States that may not have fully 

complete volume data. 

The three responding States also indicated they have volumes for approximately five percent of 

all non-Federal-aid, non-State roads. The analysis assumed that traffic volumes will be 

estimated for 90 percent of the non-State paved roads, and collected on the remaining 5 

percent of the roadways. 

The estimated cost to collect the volume data is based on vendors’ cost estimates collected in 

the previous Market Analysis report at $480 per count (and updated to present value).(2) The 

analysis assumed one count per mile for urban roads, and one count per five miles for rural 

roads given that these roads tend to have similar volumes for longer stretches due to fewer 

cross roads. This resulted in a $480 per mile cost for urban roads and $96 per mile for rural 

roads. 

The analysis assumed States will use existing volume and roadway data to estimate volumes on 

the roads where counts are not conducted. This can be done using geospatial analysis that 

assigns volumes based on roadway and location characteristics. Similar to the model run for 

segment and intersection identifiers, the analysis assumed a flat cost of $16,640 (160 hours at 

$104/hour) for estimation of volumes. In addition to this, there is a one-time cost of $166,000 

to develop the model.

(17) 

The MIRE FDE includes volumes for intersections of non-local paved roadways for both 

intersecting roadways. This analysis assumed that separate intersection volumes will not be 

counted. Instead, volumes will be assigned to the intersection based on the AADT of the 

intersecting roads. Based on the MIRE MIS intersection inventory effort, the cost to assign the 

volumes to an intersection was approximately $0.52 per intersection (100 hours per 10,000 

intersections at $52 per hour).

(7) 

21
 
 

Ramps 

QA/QC Costs 

 

Data Maintenance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

HPMS reporting includes volume data for ramps; therefore, no additional cost is incurred to 

collect these data for ramps. 

A five percent cost was added to volume data collection for QA/QC which is applied to the 

total cost of volume data collection for all road classes. Appendix A6 provides the cost 

breakdown for volume data collection for each State. 

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

calculated (e.g., the costs to update the data as conditions change). For roadway segment data, 

the analysis assumed that two percent of the roadway mileage will be updated annually. The 

analysis approximated that updating the segment data will cost $6.20 per mile (five miles per 

hour at $31/hour). The cost of updating the segment data is more than the initial cost of 

collecting segment data since these updates will most likely not be done by updating individual 

segments based on updates from construction/design plans, aerials, and other technological 

advances, rather than re-collecting the data on a large-scale. More time will be needed to 

update segments individually (e.g., higher unit price for collection) than the large scale initial 

collection effort. 

For intersections, the analysis assumed two percent of intersections will be updated annually. 

Similar to segments, these will be based on updates from construction/design plans and aerials. 

The analysis estimated that updating the intersection data will cost $2.68 per intersection (five 

minutes per intersection at $31/hour). Similar to segments, this assumed that more time will 

be needed for each intersection that is updated. 

The analysis assumed two percent of ramps will be updated annually. The cost for updating 

ramps is $5.28 per ramp (10 minutes per ramp at $31/hour). As with segments and 

intersections, the analysis assumed more time is need per ramp for the data updates. 

For updating volumes, the analysis assumed volumes on non-Federal-aid State roads will be 

updated on a three-year cycle (i.e., 33 percent of volumes updated annually). The volumes on 

non-Federal-aid non-State roads will be updated on a six-year cycle. This is only for those 

roads that have existing counts (five percent of total) and roads with new counts from the data 

collection (five percent of total). This equates to approximately two percent of the nonFederal-aid non-State roads annually. The same rate of collection and cost per count used for 

the data collection is applied for the updates, for both urban and rural roads. 

22
 
 

 

 

Management and Administration of Data Collection Efforts 

 

Miscellaneous Costs 

Implementation Plan 

 

Local Agency Partner Liaison Costs 

 

 

 

Formatting and Analyzing Enhanced Data Costs 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

These data collection cycles and maintenance assumptions were based on standard practices 

obtained through discussions with several States. 

A five percent cost was added to maintenance cost for QA/QC which is applied to the total 

cost of maintenance. 

Appendix A7 summarizes the maintenance costs for each State. 

The efforts to collect the roadway segment, intersection, and ramp data will require additional 

costs for management and administration, particularly if the data are collected by vendors or 

contractors. The analysis included management and administration costs equal to five percent 

of the total data collection costs, up to $260,000 maximum for each State. Appendix A8

provides the cost breakdown for volume data collection for each State. 

In addition to the costs of initial data collection and the costs to maintain the data, there are 

also one-time and annual ongoing costs associated with data collection. 

Each State is required to prepare a MIRE FDE data collection implementation plan before any 

data collection effort. The cost for this effort was estimated to be a one-time cost of $100,000 

based on project experiences developing plans for similar efforts. 

This study assumed that States will liaise with local municipalities and MPOs for updating the 

database and importing data collected by these agencies to the State maintained LRS, rather 

than duplicating the data collection effort. The analysis estimated local partner coordination 

costs equal to $2.80 per mile for the total road miles in the State, with a minimum of $235,000 

for each State based on recommendation by the State of Washington in the NPRM comments. 

The annual, ongoing cost of using this enhanced data for each State was also included in this 

analysis. This cost was estimated to be $125,000 per year for each State based on the 

comments received on NPRM, approximately equal to one full-time staff member per year. In 

23
 
 

 

 

Desktop and Web Application Costs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

the initial years, the cost would relate primarily to formatting the data. In subsequent years, the 

cost would relate to analyzing the enhanced data. 

The annual, ongoing cost of converting and uploading the LRS data on the web for each State 

was also included in this analysis. This cost is estimated to be $78,000 per year for first two 

year for each State based on the comments received on NPRM. After the first two year, the 

annual maintenance cost is estimated to be $15,500 per year. In the initial years, the cost 

would relate primarily to developing the web application and formatting the data. In 

subsequent years, the cost would relate to maintaining the website and updating the data. 

Appendix A9 summarizes the miscellaneous costs for each State. 

Disaggregated Annual Costs 

The annual base cost for segments, intersections, and ramps was disaggregated for each State. 

The analysis assumed that all States will have an LRS by June 30, 2016, as this is the end date for 

LRS development. The analysis assumed a data collection start date of June 30, 2016, assigning 

the data to the new LRS. The analysis assumed the MIRE FDE data collection including the 

implementation plan will be completed by June 30, 2026, for a total time period of 11 years 

starting on June 30, 2015. The costs are disaggregated annually at an equal rate for the 

duration of the data collection period, which does not include the first year during which the 

implementation plan will be prepared. 

Data collection and maintenance costs were assessed over the entire analysis period—2015 to 

2035. This timeframe allowed for the total eleven year data collection period and an additional 

ten years of implementation. Three discount rates of undiscounted, 3.0 percent, and 7.0 

percent are used to calculate the present value of the collection and maintenance costs for each 

year in 2014 dollars, representing several inflation scenarios as required by OMB Circular A-4. 

The present value cost for each year was summed to determine the net present value cost for 

the total analysis period, including maintenance of the data. Appendix A10 summarizes the net 

present value costs for each State. 

Benefits 

The cost-effectiveness analyses is calculated by estimating the reduction in fatalities and all 

injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio, and a 10:1 ratio of benefits to costs. The 1:1 ratio is 

necessary for a breakeven analysis, while the 10:1 ratio is more consistent with benefits 

achieved by highway safety improvement projects. That is, the assumed benefit of collecting the 

MIRE FDE is a reduction in a cross section of crashes which include some property damage 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

only crashes, some injury crashes, and some fatal crashes.. The 2014 comprehensive cost of a 

fatality is $9,300,000 and $109,800 for an injury, based on the value of a statistical life.

(14) The 

injury cost reflects the average injury costs based on the national distribution of injuries in the 

General Estimate System (GES) using a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS). MAIS 

injuries are on a scale of zero to five, with five representing the most severe non-fatal injury in 

the crash. Table 7 shows the detailed calculation of how the average cost of injury in a crash 

was calculated based on the fraction (proportion) of the Value of Statistical Life (VSL). 

Table 7. Cost of Injury Calculation 

AIS Level Severity 2007 2011 Average 

Injury Distribution 

excluding Fatalities2 ,3 

Fraction 

of VSL 

Cost Cost of 

Injury1 

AIS 1 Minor $ 2,411,169 88.4% 0.003 $27,900 $ 24,653 

AIS 2 Moderate $ 229,954 8.4% 0.047 $437,100 $36,836 

AIS 3 Serious $ 67,590 2.5% 0.105 $976,500 $24,188 

AIS 4 Severe $ 14,573 0.5% 0.266 $ 2,473,800 $ 13,212 

AIS 5 Critical $ 5,398 0.2% 0.593 $5,514,900 $10,910 

Total Cost of Injury for any Severity $109,800 

Notes: 

1. Injury cost calculated using distribution of AIS Levels 1-5.
 

2."Benefit-Cost Analysis for Transportation Infrastructure: A Practitioners Workshop," Darren Timothy, FHWA,
 

http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/benefit_cost10/program/presentations/timothy.pdf
 

3. National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), General Estimates System (GES)
 

The average cost of a fatality and injury was calculated for the analysis period. This calculation 

accounts for the portion of the fatality and injury costs during the data collection period. 

The analysis used a six-year average of fatalities in each State, as reported in the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from 2007 to 2012.(15) The six-year ratio of the number of 

fatalities to injuries is the national average ratio of fatalities to injuries. During this six-year 

period, there were an average of 35,157 total fatalities per year and 2,312,000 total injuries per 

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

fatalities and injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio, and a 10:1 of benefits to costs is developed 

for each State. Table 8 shows the growth of cost of fatality and injury over the analysis period 

using an inflation rate of 1.18 percent. 

The future cost of a fatality and injury was forecasted out for each year of the analysis period, 

and then represented in 2014 dollar values using the three discount rates. The benefits 

calculation assumed a yearly accumulation of benefits beginning after the June 30, 2016 data 

collection start date. The analysis assumed a portion of benefits will be accumulated while data 

25
 
 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

are collected, with the full realization of benefits after data collection is complete. The benefits 

are spread over a 10-year data collection period at equal increments. 

Table 9 shows the rate of accumulation of the benefits. 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 8. Present Value Cost of Fatalities and Injuries (2014 Dollars). 

PRESENT VALUE COST OF FATALITIES AND INJURIES (2014 DOLLARS) 

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 

Fatality $9,300,000 $8,794,150 $8,315,814 $7,863,495 $7,435,780 $7,031,329 $6,648,878 $6,287,228 $5,945,250 $5,621,873 $5,316,085 $5,026,930 $4,753,502 $4,494,947 $4,250,456 $4,019,263 $3,800,645 $3,593,918 $3,398,436 $3,213,587 $3,038,791

Injury4 $ 109,800 $ 103,827 $ 98,180 $ 92,840 $ 87,790 $ 83,015 $ 78,499 $ 74,230 $ 70,192 $ 66,374 $ 62,764 $ 59,350 $ 56,122 $ 53,069 $ 50,183 $ 47,453 $ 44,872 $ 42,431 $ 40,123 $ 37,941 $ 35,877 

Notes: 

4. Injury cost calculated using distribution of injury crashes for MAIS Levels 1-5.

27 
 

 

- 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

Table 9. Accumulation of Benefits. 

Year End Value of Data in 

Decision Making Comment 

6/30/2017 0% No value in first full year of collection as data are not 

readily available for analysis 

6/30/2018 10% LRS is available for use and increases ability for analysis 

6/30/2019 20% LRS is available for use and increases ability for analysis 

6/30/2020 30% LRS is available for use and increases ability for analysis 

6/30/2021 40% LRS and high priority data are available 

6/30/2022 50% LRS and high priority data are available 

6/30/2023 60% LRS and high priority data are available 

6/30/2024 70% LRS and high priority data are available 

6/30/2025 80% Rate of increase in value flattens 

6/30/2026 90% Rate of increase in value flattens 

6/30/2027 100% Rate of increase in value flattens 

6/30/2028 100% Rate of increase in value flattens 

6/30/2029 100% Full value of data realized 

6/30/2030 100% Value of investment continues. 

6/30/2031 100% Value of investment continues. 

6/30/2032 100% Value of investment continues. 

6/30/2033 100% Value of investment continues. 

6/30/2034 100% Value of investment continues. 

6/30/2035 100% Value of investment continues. 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

RESULTS 

Costs of Data Collection and Maintenance 

The costs for each State to collect the additional MIRE FDE are compiled into eight categories: 

1.	 Costs to develop a common LRS.

2.	 Costs to collect the MIRE FDE elements for roadway segments.

3.	 Costs to collect the MIRE FDE elements for intersections.

4.	 Costs to collect the MIRE FDE elements for ramps.

5.	 Cost to collect volume data.

6.	 Cost to manage and administer data collection efforts.

7.	 Cost to maintain the data annually.

8.	 Miscellaneous costs —including the one-time cost of developing an implementation plan

and cost of data collection mobilization and annual ongoing costs of local agency partner

liaison, formatting and analyzing enhanced data and desktop and web application.

Table 10 lists the net present value undiscounted, 3.0 percent and 7.0 percent discount rate 

costs to complete the data collection and maintain the data for the entire 20-year period. 

Table 11 lists the annualized undiscounted, 3.0 percent and 7.0 percent discount rate costs to 

complete the data collection and maintain the data for the entire 20-year period. 

29
 
 

Cost 

Components 

 

LRS 

US Average per State 

Undiscounted (0.0%) 3.0 % discount 

$666,865 $657,153 

7.0 % discount Undiscounted (0.0%) 

$645,051 $34,010,102 

US Total 

3.0 % discount 7.0 % discount 

$33,514,809 $32,897,622 

Segments $1,350,574 $1,135,290 $917,558 $68,879,288 $57,899,768 $46,795,474 

Intersections $42,378 $35,622 $28,791 $2,161,256 $1,816,747 $1,468,323 

Ramps $20,745 $17,438 $14,094 $1,057,984 $889,339 $718,777 

Volumes $809,748 $699,169 $585,726 $41,297,152 $35,657,606 $29,872,025 

Management & 

Administration 

$125,700 $105,663 $85,398 $6,410,685 $5,388,807 $4,355,316 

Maintenance $1,287,916 $888,614 $566,820 $65,683,740 $45,319,305 $28,907,829 

Miscellaneous $8,619,325 $6,422,002 $4,582,879 $439,585,598 $327,522,078 $233,726,851 

Total $12,923,251 $9,960,950 $7,426,318 $659,085,805 $508,008,459 $378,742,217 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 10. Net Present Costs of MIRE FDE Data Collection and Maintenance Costs for the 2015-2035 Analysis 

Period (2014 Dollars) Discounted Seven Percent. 

30 
 

Cost 

Components 

 

LRS 

US Average per State 

Undiscounted (0.0 %) 3.0 % discount 

$33,343 $44,170 

7.0 % discount Undiscounted (0.0%) 

$60,886 $1,700,505 

US Total 

3.0 % discount 7.0 % discount 

$2,252,664 $3,105,207 

Segments $67,529 $76,307 $86,608 $3,443,964 $3,891,675 $4,417,025 

Intersections $2,119 $2,394 $2,718 $108,063 $122,111 $138,595 

Ramps $1,037 $1,172 $1,330 $52,899 $59,776 $67,845 

Volumes $40,487 $46,994 $55,287 $2,064,858 $2,396,690 $2,819,620 

Management & 

Administration 

$6,285 $7,102 $8,061 $320,534 $362,203 $411,098 

Maintenance $64,396 $59,727 $53,502 $3,284,187 $3,046,092 $2,728,610 

Miscellaneous $430,966 $431,648 $432,578 $21,979,280 $22,014,069 $22,061,477 

Total $646,163 $669,515 $700,970 $32,954,290 $34,145,281 $35,749,478 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 11. Annualized Costs of MIRE FDE Data Collection and Maintenance Costs for the 2015-2035 Analysis Period 

(2014 Dollars) Discounted Seven Percent. 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Benefit-Cost Analysis 

The estimated benefits needed for the entire analysis period and the benefits needed per year 

after the benefits are realized are summarized in Table 12 and Table 13, respectively, for the 

three discount rates. Fatalities and injuries are rounded to the nearest whole number. In 

order to achieve a greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio, the national fatality and injury average 

would need to experience a reduction of 76 and 5,020, respectively, over the course of the 

analysis period at a 7 percent discount rate. As the benefit to cost ratio increases, as does the 

needed reduction in fatalities and injuries. A 10:1 benefit cost ratio would be achieved through 

a decrease in the national average of fatalities by 760 and 50,201 injuries. Both, the number of 

fatalities and injuries will need to be reduced in order to achieve the desired benefit to cost 

ratio. 

As demonstrated in Table 13, a 1:1 benefit to cost ratio would be achieved through reducing 

the national average (per year) of fatalities by 4 and injuries by 264 (both rounded to the 

nearest whole number). A 10:1 benefit to cost ratio would reflect a reduction of 40 fatalities 

and 2,642 injuries. 

Between 2007 and 2012 an average of 35,157 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the 

United States, and an estimated 2.23 million people were injured. (18,19) The decrease in 

fatalities needed to achieve a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio represent a 0.8 percent reduction of annual 

fatalities using the average of 2007-2012 statistics. The experiences to date in States that are 

already collecting and using roadway data comparable to the MIRE FDE suggests there is a very 

high likelihood that the benefits of collecting and using the MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs. 

The MIRE FDE in combination with crash data will support more cost-effective safety 

investment decisions and ultimately yield greater reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per 

dollar invested. 

One study on the effectiveness of the HSIP found: The magnitude of States’ fatal crash 

reduction was highly associated with the years of available crash data, prioritizing method, and 

use of roadway inventory data.(20) Moreover, States that prioritized hazardous sites by using 

more detailed roadway inventory data and the empirical Bayes method had the greatest 

reductions; all of those States relied heavily on the quality of crash data system.” 

For example, this study cites Colorado’s safety improvements, noting “Deployment of advanced 

methods on all projects and acquisition of high-quality data may explain why Colorado 

outperformed the rest of the country in reduction of fatal crashes.”(20) Illinois was also high on 

this study’s list of States with the highest percentage reduction in fatalities. In a case study of 

Illinois’ use of AASHTO Highway Safety Manual methods, an Illinois DOT official noted that use 

of these methods “requires additional roadway data, but has improved the sophistication of 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

safety analyses in Illinois resulting in better decisions to allocate limited safety 

resources.”(21) Another case study of Ohio’s adoption of a tool to apply the roadway safety 

management methods described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual concluded, “In Ohio, 

one of the benefits of applying various HSM screening methods was identifying ways to 

overcome some of the limitations of existing practices. For example, the previous mainframe 

methodology typically over-emphasized urban “sites of promise” – locations identified for 

further investigation and potential countermeasure implementation. These locations were 

usually in the largest urban areas, often with a high frequency of crashes that were low in 

severity. Now, several screening methods can be used in the network screening process 

resulting in greater identification of rural corridors and projects. This identification enables 

Ohio’s safety program to address more factors contributing to fatal and injury crashes across 

the State, instead of being limited to high-crash locations in urban areas, where crashes often 

result in minor or no injuries.”(22) Another document quantified these benefits, indicating that 

the number of fatalities per identified mile is 67 percent higher, the number of serious injuries 

per mile is 151 percent higher, and the number of total crashes is 105 percent higher with 

these new methods than with their former methods.(23) In summary, all three States 

experienced benefits to the effectiveness of safety investment decision-making through the use 

of methods that included roadway data akin to the MIRE FDE and crash data in their highway 

safety analyses. 

33
 
 

-

 

 

 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Table 12. Estimated Benefits Needed to Achieve Benefit-Cost Ratios of 1:1, and 

10:1 for the 2015-2035 Analysis Period. 

Benefits Number of Lives Saved/Injuries Avoided 

Nationally for the 2015 2035 Analysis Period 

Undiscounted (0.0%) 3.00% 7.00% 

Benefit/Cost Ratio of 1:1 

# of lives saved (fatalities) 55 63 76 

# of injuries avoided 3,635 4,156 5,020 

Benefit/Cost Ratio of 10:1 

# of lives saved (fatalities) 553 632 763 

# of injuries avoided 36,351 41,563 50,201 

Table 13. Estimated per year Benefits Needed to Achieve Benefit-Cost Ratios of 

1:1, and 10:1 for the 2015-2035 Analysis Period. 

Benefits Number of Lives Saved/Injuries Avoided 

Nationally per year for the 2015 2035 Analysis 

Period 

Undiscounted (0.0%) 3.00% 7.00% 

Benefit/Cost Ratio of 1:1 

# of lives saved (fatalities) 3 3 4 

# of injuries avoided 191 219 264 

Benefit/Cost Ratio of 10:1 

# of lives saved (fatalities) 29 33 40 

# of injuries avoided 1,913 2,188 2,642 

34
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

SUMMARY
 

The purpose of this effort was to update the economic analysis of the development of a 

statewide common LRS and the collection of the MIRE FDE on all public roads. Collecting 

additional roadway and traffic data, and integrating those data into the safety analysis process, 

will improve an agency’s ability to make more informed decisions, better target safety 

investments, and reduce fatalities and serious injuries. 

The approach used to conduct the economic analysis was a hybrid of a benefit-cost analysis and 

a cost effectiveness analysis. The costs for data collection were provided from several sources 

including the MIRE MIS Lead Agency Program intersection inventory effort, Utah’s LiDAR 

experience, and vendors’ estimates. 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 10:1 ratio) were 

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

The analysis calculated the costs for each State to collect the MIRE FDE that they do not 

already collect for HPMS, or for other purposes, as reported in the State Data Capabilities 

Assessment. (10) The costs were broken down for the development of an LRS, collection of 

segment, intersection, ramp, and volume data, management and administration of data, annual 

maintenance of data, and other miscellaneous costs. 

The analysis period, including the time for developing an implementation plan and data 

collection, is from 2015 to 2035. Benefits do not start to accumulate until after the LRS data 

are available for use, which is assumed to be June 30, 2017. After that date, a portion of the 

benefits accumulate while the FDE data are collected, with the full realization of benefits after 

data collection is complete in 2026. Benefits continue to accumulate for a nine-year period 

after 2026 to 2035 to fully realize the benefits. 

The estimated reduction in fatalities and injuries was determined based on the costs. The 

national average for the total cost of data collection and maintenance over the entire analysis 

period of 20 years is $7.43 million per State (in 2014 U.S. dollars). Based on the accumulation 

of benefits from Table 9, the benefit period is 19 years because the LRS data will not be readily 

available for analysis till June 30, 2016. The period of analysis is 20 years with no benefit in the 

first year as the data collected in the year 2016 will not be readily available for analysis. 

Nationally, a reduction of 4 fatalities and 251 injuries per year over a period of 20 years from 

2016 to 2035 is required to achieve a greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio discounted at 7

percent. This translates to a reduction in the total national fatality (35,157) and injury 

(2,231,200) average by 0.2 percent per year. 

35
 
MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST -BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

REFERENCES
 

1.	 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-HRT-10-

048, Washington, DC, October 2010.

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

Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to Support the Highway Safety Program. Federal

Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-11-40, Washington, DC, June 2011.

3.	 Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety. Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental

Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

August 2011.

4.	 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, Washington, DC, June 2011.

5.	 Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety. MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in

the 21st Century – Guidance on State Safety Data Systems. December 2012.

6.	 Memorandum on Geospatial Network for All Public Roads, Federal Highway Administration

Office of Highway Policy Information and Office of Planning, August 7, 2012.

7.	 Fiedler, R; N. Lefler; J. Mallela; D. Abott; D. Smelser; and R. Becker. MIRE MIS Lead

Agency Data Collection Report, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-13-008.

Washington, DC. March 2013.

8.	 Roadway Imaging/Inventory Program Scope of Work. Utah Department of Transportation,

2011. 

9.	 Ellsworth, P. Utah DOT Leveraging LiDAR for Leap to Asset Management. Lidar

Magazine, Volume 3, No. 1. 2013. www.lidarnews.com. Accessed February 26, 2013.

10. Sawyer, M.; N. Lefler; J. Soika; D. Carter; R. Scopatz; F. Gross; H. Rothenberg; J. Miller;

G. Bahar; and K. Eccles. “United States Roadway Safety Data Capabilities Assessment,”

Report No. FHWA-SA-12-028, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., July

2012. 

11. Highway Statistics, 2012. Table HM-50 Public Road Length – 2012 Miles by Ownership.

FHWA Office of Policy, October 2013.

12. Highway Statistics, 2012. Table HM-51 Functional System Length – 2012 Miles by Type

of Surface. FHWA Office of Policy, October 2013.

13. Highway Statistics, 2012. Table HM-14 Federal Aid Highway Length – 2012 Miles by

Ownership. FHWA Office of Policy, October 2013.

36
 
MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST -BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

14. Memorandum from Peter Rogoff, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy to

Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators, “Treatment of the Economic Value of a

Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses – 2014 Adjustment.” Dated June 13, 2014.

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

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

16. Fiedler R.; K. Eccles; N. Lefler; A. Fill; and E. Chan. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements

Cost-Benefit Estimation” Report No. FHWA-SA-13-018, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2013 Revised August 2013.

17. Phase 3 Report: “Alternative Methodologies for Estimating Local Road VMT in
 

Michigan” Dated September 2009.
 

18. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Fatality Analysis Reporting System: can

be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.

19. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – National Automotive Sampling System

(NASS) General Estimates System (GES): can be accessed at the following Internet Web

site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/NASS.

20. Wu, K.-F., Himes, S.C., and Pietrucha, M.T., “Evaluation of Effectiveness of the Federal

Highway Safety Improvement Program,” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2318, pp.

23-34, 2013.

21. Highway Safety Manual Case Study 4: Development of Safety Performance Functions for

Network Screening in Illinois. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/il_cstd.cfm.

22. Highway Safety Manual Case Study 2: Implementing a New Roadway Safety
 

Management Process with SafetyAnalyst in Ohio.
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/oh_cstd.cfm.
 

23. Hughes, J. and Council, F.M., “How Good Data Lead to Better Safety Decisions,” ITE

Journal, April 2012.

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A1 a. Cost Inputs and Source - LRS. 

OWNERSHIP VARIABLE RATE UNIT COMMENT 

All Cost to 

collect 

$30.00 per mile $30 per mile cost based on 2012 Utah LiDAR project for State 

where total mileage for LRS is >1,0001 miles. Reinforced by 

previous market analysis has been updated to 2014 value using the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator 

All Cost to 

collect 

$45.00 per mile For State where total mileage for LRS is 5,001-10,000 miles. Cost 

based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has 

been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

All Cost to 

collect 

$55.00 per mile For State where total mileage for LRS is 3,001 -5,001 miles. Cost 

based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has 

been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

All Cost to 

collect 

$70.00 per mile For State where total mileage for LRS is 1,001-3,000 miles. Cost 

based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has 

been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

All Cost to 

collect 

$90.00 per mile For State where total mileage for LRS is < 1,000 miles. Cost 

based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis 

has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

QA/QC Cost for 

QA/QC 

5% percent Based on Utah LiDar and professional experience - refer to the 

bottom of the sheet for the calculations and source. 

38
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A1 b. Cost Inputs and Source - Segments. 

OWNERSHIP VARIABLE RATE UNIT COMMENT 

All Field collection, LiDAR mobilization $265,000.0 base cost Cost based on 2012 Utah LiDAR base mobilization cost has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local Paved Roads Field collection, LiDAR cost $30.00 per mile Cost based on 2012 Utah LiDAR. Surface type ($26/mi), median type ($4/mi). Updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator 

Non-Local Paved Roads Cost to collect $45.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is 5,001-10,000 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated 

to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local Paved Roads Cost to collect $55.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is 3,001 -5001 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 

2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local Paved Roads Cost to collect $70.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is 1,001-3,000 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 

2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local Paved Roads Cost to collect $90.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is < 1,000 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 

2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local Paved Roads In office, rate of collection 10 miles per hour Access control and number of through lanes can be collected from aerials, plus any additional identifiers (minimal). 

Non-Local Paved Roads In office, cost $31.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local Paved Roads In office, rate of conversion 40,000.00 maximum Flat rate of conversion of roadway inventory data to LRS database for links with missing data. This cost is based on an assumption that 2% of the links will have to 

be manually checked and entered. 

Local Paved Roads Field collection, LiDAR cost for 

elements 

$27.00 per mile Based on Utah LiDAR costs. Surface type ($26/mi). Updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Field collection, LiDAR cost for 

elements 

$41.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is 5001-10,000 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 

2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Field collection, LiDAR cost for 

elements 

$50.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is 3001 -5001 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 2014 

value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Field collection, LiDAR cost for 

elements 

$63.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is 1001-3,000 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 2014 

value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Field collection, LiDAR cost for 

elements 

$81.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is < 1000 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 2014 

value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Field collection, LiDAR cost for 

elements 

$81.00 per mile For State where total mileage for data collection is < 1000 miles. Cost based on a sliding scale reinforced by previous market analysis has been updated to 2014 

value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads In office, rate of collection 10 miles per hour Number of through lanes can be collected from aerials, plus any additional identifiers (minimal). 

Local Paved Roads In office, cost $27.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Unpaved Roads - Urban In office, rate of collection 25.00 miles per hour Functional Class and Ownership, plus any additional identifiers (minimal). Cost estimate is based on professional experience during working on the Functional 

Classification system for VDOT. 

Unpaved Roads - Urban In office, cost $60.00 per hour GIS Technician. 

Unpaved Roads - Rural In office, rate of collection 80.00 miles per hour Functional Class and Ownership, plus any additional identifiers (minimal). Cost estimate is based on professional experience during working on the Functional 

Classification system for VDOT. 

Unpaved Roads - Rural In office, cost $60.00 per hour GIS Technician. 

QA/QC 5% percent Based on Utah LiDar and professional experience - refer to the bottom of the sheet for the calculations and source. 

39 
 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A1 c. Cost Inputs and Source - Intersections. 

OWNERSHIP VARIABLE RATE UNIT COMMENT 

All Number of 

intersections, 

all roads 

Based on ratio between TIGER and HPMS mileage applied to 

number of intersections from TIGER Line mileage. Refer to 

Intersection Data tab for calculations. 

Non-Local/NonLocal and NonLocal/Local Portion of 

intersections 

that fall in this 

category 

22% percent Extrapolation based on data obtained from States. See StateData_Int 

tab. 

All Identification 

of 

intersections 

and 

identifiers, 

rate 

120 hours This is a model that is run; setup time is the same regardless of the 

size of the State. Requires LRS to be in place; this portion occurs 

after 2016 for most States. 

All Identification 

of 

intersections 

and 

identifiers, 

cost 

$104.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value 

using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local/NonLocal and NonLocal/Local In office, rate 

of collection 

0.033 hours per 

intersectio 

n 

Rate equivalent to 2 minutes per intersection. Geometry and traffic 

control can be collected from aerials. 

Non-Local/NonLocal and NonLocal/Local In office, cost $31.00 per hour Base on NH intersection inventory costs and updated to 2014 value 

using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

QA/QC 5% percent Based on Utah LiDar and professional experience - refer to the 

bottom of the sheet for the calculations and source. 

40
 
 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A1 d. Cost Inputs and Source - Ramps. 

OWNERSHIP VARIABLE RATE UNIT COMMENT 

All Number of 

ramps 

Based on average interchange to ramp ratio between States that 

provided ramp data and applied to total interchanges from TIGER. 

Refer to Ramp Data tab for calculations. 

All Identification 

of ramps and 

identifiers, 

rate 

80 hours This is a model that is run; setup time is the same regardless of the 

size of the State. Requires LRS to be in place; this portion occurs 

after 2014 for most States. 

All Identification 

of ramps and 

identifiers, 

cost 

$104.00 per hour 

All In office, rate 

of collection 

0.13 hours per 

ramp 

Rate equivalent to eight minutes per ramp. 

All In office, cost $31.00 per hour 

QA/QC 5% percent Based on Utah LiDar and professional experience - refer to the 

bottom of the sheet for the calculations and source. 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A1 e. Cost Inputs and Source - Volume. 

OWNERSHIP VARIABLE RATE UNIT COMMENT 

Non-Local Paved 

Roads 

Percent of 

roads with 

volume 

95% percent Only for Non-State roads, state roads are all HPMS elements and 

therefore 100% of the roads have AADT 

Non-Local Paved 

Roads 

Percent of 

roads to 

collect volume 

5% percent 

Non-Local Paved 

Roads 

ADT on 

segment, 

urban, rate of 

collection 

1 count per 

mile 

Non-Local Paved 

Roads 

ADT on 

segment, 

urban, cost 

$480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using 

the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local Paved 

Roads 

ADT on 

segment, rural, 

rate of 

collection 

0.2 count per 

mile 

Rate is equivalent to one count every five miles. 

Non-Local Paved 

Roads 

ADT on 

segment, rural, 

cost 

$480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using 

the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Percent of 

roads with 

volume 

5% percent 

Local Paved Roads Percent of 

roads to 

estimate 

volume 

90% percent 

Local Paved Roads Model 

Development 

Cost 

$166,000.0 per State One time flat cost to develop the regression model for estimating counts 

based on five percent actual count to get the 90-10 Confidence Interval. 

Based on Michigan's 2009 report for estimating traffic on local roads 

Local Paved Roads Estimation of 

volumes, rate 

160.00 hours Assume estimations are based on exiting roadway information (e.g., 

functional class, area type) and existing volumes. 

Local Paved Roads Estimation of 

volumes, cost 

$104.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using 

the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Percent of 

roads to 

collect volume 

5% percent 

Local Paved Roads ADT on 

segment, 

urban, rate of 

collection 

1 count per 

mile 

Local Paved Roads ADT on 

segment, 

urban, cost 

$480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using 

the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads ADT on 

segment, rural, 

rate of 

collection 

0.2 count per 

mile 

Rate is equivalent to one count every five miles. 

Local Paved Roads ADT on 

segment, rural, 

cost 

$480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using 

the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Non-Local/NonLocal and NonLocal/Local 

Intersection 

Assignment of 

volumes, rate 

$0.01 hours per 

intersectio 

n 

Rate is equivalent to 100 hours per 10,000 intersections. This is based on 

the NH intersection inventory effort and updated to 2014 using the CPI. 

Non-Local/NonLocal and NonLocal/Local 

Intersection 

Assignment of 

volumes, cost 

$52.00 per hour 

QA/QC 5% percent Based on Utah LiDar and professional experience - refer to the bottom of 

the sheet for the calculations and source. 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A1 f. Cost Inputs and Source - Inventory Maintenance Costs. 

OWNERSHIP VARIABLE RATE UNIT COMMENT 

Segment - Non-Local Paved Roads Roadways updated annually 2% percent Update annually. Based on inputs FHWA and knowledge of State practices. 

Segment - Non-Local Paved Roads In office, rate of collection 5 miles per hour 

Segment - Non-Local Paved Roads In office, cost $31.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Local Paved Roads Roadways updated annually 1% percent Update annually. Based on inputs FHWA and knowledge of State practices. 

Local Paved Roads In office, rate of collection 5 miles per hour 

Local Paved Roads In office, cost $31.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Intersections - S/S and S/L Intersections updated annually 2% percent Update annually. Based on inputs FHWA and knowledge of State practices. 

Intersections - S/S and S/L In office, rate of collection 0.08 hours per intersection Rate equivalent to five minutes per intersection. Assume more individual attention needed for each intersection. 

Intersections - S/S and S/L In office, cost $31.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator 

Ramps Ramps updated annually 2% percent Update annually. Based on inputs FHWA and knowledge of State practices. 

Ramps In office, rate of collection 0.17 hours per ramp Rate equivalent to ten minutes per ramp. Assume more individual attention needed for each ramp. 

Ramps In office, cost $31.00 per hour Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Volume - Non-Local Paved Roads Volumes updated annually, urban 33% percent Update on a three-year cycle. 

Volume - Non-Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, urban, rate of 

collection 

1 count per mile 

Volume - Non-Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, urban, cost $480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Volume - Non-Local Paved Roads Volumes updated annually, rural 33% percent Update on a three-year cycle. 

Volume - Non-Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, rural, rate of 

collection 

0.2 count per mile Rate is equivalent to one count every five miles. 

Volume - Non-Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, rural, cost $ 480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Volume - Local Paved Roads Volumes updated annually 1.7% percent Update only the roads with volumes on a six-year cycle. 

Volume - Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, urban, rate of 

collection 

1 count per mile 

Volume - Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, urban, cost $480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

Volume - Local Paved Roads Volumes updated annually 0% percent 

Volume - Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, rural, rate of 

collection 

0.2 count per mile Rate is equivalent to 1 count every 5 miles. 

Volume - Local Paved Roads ADT on segment, rural, cost $480.00 per count Rate is based on 2013 analysis and has been updated to 2014 value using the CPI Inflation Calculator. 

QA/QC 5% percent Based on Utah LiDar and professional experience - refer to the bottom of the sheet for the calculations and source. 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A1 g. Cost Inputs and Source - Miscellaneous Inputs. 

OWNERSHIP VARIABLE RATE UNIT COMMENT 

All Implementation Plan $100,000.0 per State One time cost for developing a data collection 

implementation plan. 

All Local Partner Liaison $2.80 per mile Annual Ongoing cost of liaison with local partners for 

data update and maintenance based on Washington 

$235,000. Will set a floor of 235,000 for States with 

mileage less than WA but calculate as per mile for 

other States. 

All Local Partner Liaison $235,000.0 minimum Annual Ongoing cost of liaison with local partners for 

data update and maintenance based on Washington 

$235,000. Will set a floor of 235,000 for States with 

mileage less than WA but calculate as per mile for 

other States. 

All Formatting and 

Analyzing Enhance Data 

$125,000.0 per State Annual cost based on States comments on NPRM. 

All Discount Rate 7.00% percent Per FHWA direction. 

All Inflation Rate 0.00% percent 

All Value of a Statistical 

Life (VSL) 

$9,300,000. 

00 

per fatality Source: Guidance on Treatment of the Economic 

Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of 

Transportation Analyses - 2014 Update 

(http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL_Guid 

ance_2014.pdf). Also notes it should grow by 1.18 per 

year before discounting to PV. 

All Inflation Rate 1.18% percent Inflation Rate for VSL. 

All Annualization Factor 0.094390 per dollar The factor to annualize the total present value cost at 

the specified discount rate. 

All Data collection M&A, 

percent of costs 

5% percent Management and administration costs for data 

collection. 

All Data collection M&A, 

maximum 

$260,000.0 maximum 

All Desktop and Web 

Application 

$78,000.00 maximum Uploading the data to cloud and annual maintenance 

cost for first two years. Based on 2012 Utah LiDar 

and updated to 2014 using CPI. 

All Desktop and Web 

Application 

$15,500.00 maximum Uploading the data to cloud and annual maintenance 

cost starting in third year and beyond. Based on 2012 

Utah LiDar and updated to 2014 using CPI. 

44
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A2. Cost of Completing a Linear Referencing System by State. 

State State5 Local6 Total QA/QC Grand Total 

Alabama - - - - -

Alaska $ 43,742 $ 305,425 $ 349,168 $ 17,458 $ 366,626 

Arizona $ 23,542 $ 1,536,427 $ 1,559,969 $ 77,998 $ 1,637,968 

Arkansas - $ 2,332,500 $ 2,332,500 $ 116,625 $ 2,449,125 

California - - - - -

Colorado $ 4,194 $ 2,127,096 $ 2,131,291 $ 106,565 $ 2,237,855 

Connecticut $ 1,392 $ 456,819 $ 458,211 $ 22,911 $ 481,122 

Delaware - - - - -

Dist. of Columbia $ 38,428 $ 11,434 $ 49,862 $ 2,493 $ 52,355 

Florida $ 275 $ 2,864,959 $ 2,865,234 $ 143,262 $ 3,008,496 

Georgia - - - - -

Hawaii - - - - -

Idaho -- $ 1,114,304 $ 1,114,304 $ 55,715 $ 1,170,019 

Illinois - - - - -

Indiana - - - - -

Iowa - - - - -

Kansas $ 446 $ 3,169,674 $ 3,170,120 $ 158,506 $ 3,328,626 

Kentucky - - - - -

Louisiana - - - - -

Maine - - - - -

Maryland - - - - -

Massachusetts - - - - -

Michigan - - - - -

Minnesota - - - - -

Mississippi - - - - -

Missouri - - - - -

Montana - $ 1,785,209 $ 1,785,209 $ 89,260 $ 1,874,469 

Nebraska $ 200 $ 2,195,365 $ 2,195,565 $ 109,778 $ 2,305,343 

Nevada $ 15,226 $ 928,436 $ 943,662 $ 47,183 $ 990,845 

New Hampshire - - - - -

New Jersey - - - - -

New Mexico $ 82,939 $ 1,622,239 $ 1,705,178 $ 85,259 $ 1,790,437 

New York - $ 2,599,472 $ 2,599,472 $ 129,974 $ 2,729,445 

North Carolina $ 475,997 $ 765,390 $ 1,241,387 $ 62,069 $ 1,303,457 

North Dakota - - - - -

Ohio - - - - -

Oklahoma - - - - -

Oregon $ 5,939 $ 1,227,804 $ 1,233,743 $ 61,687 $ 1,295,431 

Pennsylvania - $ 2,284,104 $ 2,284,104 $ 114,205 $ 2,398,309 

Rhode Island - - - - -

South Carolina - $ 731,663 $ 731,663 $ 36,583 $ 768,247 

South Dakota - - - - -

Tennessee - - - - -

Texas - - - - -

Utah $ 1,812 $ 1,104,657 $ 1,106,468 $ 55,323 $ 1,161,792 

Vermont - - - - -

Virginia - - - - -

Washington - $ 1,917,007 $ 1,917,007 $ 95,850 $ 2,012,857 

West Virginia - - - - -

Wisconsin - - - - -

Wyoming $ 16,057 $ 600,398 $ 616,455 $ 30,823 $ 647,278 

US Total $ 710,190 $ 31,680,383 $ 32,390,573 $ 1,619,529 $ 34,010,102 

US Average $ 13,925 $ 621,184 $ 635,109 $ 31,755 $ 666,865 

Notes: 

5. Assume that the State roads that do not have an LRS are Non-Federal-aid, State roadways. 

6. Assume that the local roads that do not have an LRS are Non-Federal-aid, non-State roadways. 

45
 
 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A3. Cost of Roadway Segment Data Collection by State (in Dollars). 

State Group 1 (Non-local, paved) Group 2 (Local, paved) Group 3 (Unpaved) Roadway 

Inventory 

Conversion 

to LRS 

(office) 

Total QA/QC Grand Total 

State Roadways Non-State State maintained 

Local 

Non-State maintained 

Local 

State Roads (office) All others (office) 

Federal-Aid Non-Federal-Aid 

Field Office Field Office Field Office Field Office Field Office Urban Rural Urban Rural 

Alabama - $ 33,260 $ 21,399 $ 11,056 $ 536,755 $ 55,465 - $ 2 $ 1,251,596 $ 125,160 $ 0 $ 123 $ 1,807 $ 16,763 $ 40,000 $ 2,093,386 $ 104,669 $ 2,198,055 

Alaska - - $ 2,565 $ 114 $ 51,176 $ 2,266 - - $ 130,316 $ 5,585 $ 29 $ 1,456 $ 914 $ 5,605 $ 40,000 $ 240,027 $ 12,001 $ 252,029 

Arizona - - $ 32,628 $ 3,372 $ 229,029 $ 23,666 - - $ 735,838 $ 73,584 $ 32 $ 407 $ 2,542 $ 16,107 $ 40,000 $ 1,157,205 $ 57,860 $ 1,215,065 

Arkansas - $ 40,875 $ 4,501 $ 465 $ 292,733 $ 30,249 - $ 197 $ 493,543 $ 49,354 $ 55 $ 2,336 $ 2,868 $ 40,309 $ 40,000 $ 997,486 $ 49,874 $ 1,047,360 

California - $ 45,342 $ 367,579 $ 37,983 $ 1,069,018 $ 110,465 - $ 1 $ 2,695,588 $ 269,559 $ 5 $ 373 $ 4,537 $ 8,069 $ 40,000 $ 4,648,519 $ 232,426 $ 4,880,945 

Colorado - - $ 8,145 $ 842 $ 337,396 $ 34,864 - - $ 502,624 $ 50,262 $ 28 $ 2,030 $ 2,807 $ 35,304 $ 40,000 $ 1,014,302 $ 50,715 $ 1,065,017 

Connecticut - - $ 2,404 $ 1,242 $ 73,704 $ 7,616 - - $ 381,738 $ 38,174 $ 0 $ 6 $ 213 $ 470 $ 40,000 $ 545,567 $ 27,278 $ 572,845 

Delaware - - $ 2 $ 0 $ 965 $ 33 - - $ 79,264 $ 2,642 $ 8 $ 43 $ 4 $ 5 $ 40,000 $ 122,967 $ 6,148 $ 129,115 

Dist. of Columbia - - $ 550 $ 19 $ 1,958 $ 67 - - $ 7,910 $ 264 $ 35 - $ 4 - $ 40,000 $ 50,807 $ 2,540 $ 53,347 

Florida - - $ 68,062 $ 5,626 $ 456,092 $ 47,130 - - $ 2,003,330 $ 200,333 $ 27 $ 33 $ 3,180 $ 12,567 $ 40,000 $ 2,836,379 $ 141,819 $ 2,978,198 

Georgia - - $ 73,338 $ 7,578 $ 523,682 $ 54,114 - - $ 1,554,105 $ 155,411 $ 21 $ 546 $ 4,031 $ 21,353 $ 40,000 $ 2,434,180 $ 121,709 $ 2,555,889 

Hawaii - - $ 1,486 $ 84 $ 33,367 $ 1,881 - - $ 127,658 $ 6,894 $ 0 $ 0 $ 24 $ 122 $ 40,000 $ 211,515 $ 10,576 $ 222,091 

Idaho - $ 11,901 $ 28,692 $ 741 $ 209,377 $ 18,931 - - $ 353,405 $ 30,923 $ 9 $ 857 $ 299 $ 16,588 $ 40,000 $ 711,724 $ 35,586 $ 747,310 

Illinois - - $ 17,711 $ 1,830 $ 473,163 $ 48,893 - - $ 676,284 $ 67,628 $1,205 $ 2,401 $ 32,132 $ 53,389 $ 40,000 $ 1,414,638 $ 70,732 $ 1,485,370 

Indiana - $ 34,091 $ 18,612 $ 1,923 $ 549,578 $ 56,790 - $ 25 $ 1,751,156 $ 175,116 - $ 0 - $ 2 $ 40,000 $ 2,627,293 $ 131,365 $ 2,758,658 

Iowa - - $ 22,111 $ 2,285 $ 570,257 $ 58,927 - - $ 357,557 $ 35,756 $ 22 $ 2,058 $ 1,723 $ 51,669 $ 40,000 $ 1,142,364 $ 57,118 $ 1,199,483 

Kansas - - $ 22,246 $ 11,494 $ 476,921 $ 49,282 - - $ 400,932 $ 40,093 $ 155 $ 3,296 $ 1,560 $ 71,395 $ 40,000 $ 1,117,374 $ 55,869 $ 1,173,243 

Kentucky - - $ 99 $ 10 $ 27,622 $ 2,854 - - $ 1,125,211 $ 112,521 $ 3 $ 821 $ 290 $ 6,723 $ 40,000 $ 1,316,153 $ 65,808 $ 1,381,961 

Louisiana - - $ 736 $ 380 $ 69,448 $ 7,176 - - $ 760,763 $ 76,076 $ 58 $ 809 $ 2,045 $ 9,900 $ 40,000 $ 967,393 $ 48,370 $ 1,015,763 

Maine - $ 25,885 $ 5 $ 1 $ 3,317 $ 343 - $ 14 $ 268,977 $ 26,898 - $ 15 $ 259 $ 3,236 $ 40,000 $ 368,950 $ 18,448 $ 387,398 

Maryland - - $ 3,566 $ 1,843 $ 126,043 $ 13,024 - - $ 580,199 $ 58,020 $ 3 $ 24 $ 424 $ 567 $ 40,000 $ 823,713 $ 41,186 $ 864,899 

Massachusetts - - $ 13,347 $ 1,379 $ 200,490 $ 20,717 - - $ 554,814 $ 55,481 $ 9 $ 13 $ 4,632 $ 1,443 $ 40,000 $ 892,327 $ 44,616 $ 936,943 

Michigan $ 268,242 $ 27,718 $ 206,699 $ 21,359 $ 660,030 $ 68,203 $ 116 $ 12 $ 755,769 $ 75,577 $ 102 $ 498 $ 27,360 $ 33,087 $ 40,000 $ 2,184,772 $ 109,239 $ 2,294,011 

Minnesota - $ 32,394 $ 146,932 $ 15,183 $ 734,837 $ 75,933 - $ 10 $ 657,441 $ 65,744 $ 57 $ 1,017 $ 4,348 $ 53,584 $ 40,000 $ 1,827,480 $ 91,374 $ 1,918,854 

Mississippi - - $ 12,977 $ 1,341 $ 317,039 $ 32,761 - - $ 860,504 $ 86,050 $ 40 $ 298 $ 1,181 $ 14,401 $ 40,000 $ 1,366,593 $ 68,330 $ 1,434,922 

Missouri - - $ 4,233 $ 547 $ 123,711 $ 12,783 - - $ 1,010,831 $ 101,083 $ 34 $ 531 $ 863 $ 41,997 $ 40,000 $ 1,336,612 $ 66,831 $ 1,403,443 

Montana - - $ 3,239 $ 1,674 $ 219,185 $ 22,649 - - $ 175,498 $ 17,550 $ 11 $ 3,612 $ 783 $ 36,924 $ 40,000 $ 521,125 $ 26,056 $ 547,181 

Nebraska - $ 17,157 $ 8,473 $ 4,378 $ 290,565 $ 30,025 - $ 1 $ 230,495 $ 23,049 $ 30 $ 3,301 $ 949 $ 47,864 $ 40,000 $ 696,287 $ 34,814 $ 731,101 

Nevada $ 113,259 - $ 1,625 $ 168 $ 108,261 $ 11,187 $ 1,855 - $ 234,790 $ 23,479 $ 7 $ 1,087 $ 2,240 $ 14,821 $ 40,000 $ 552,779 $ 27,639 $ 580,418 

New Hampshire - - $ 571 $ 39 $ 44,117 $ 3,039 - - $ 326,263 $ 21,486 $ 3 $ 109 $ 244 $ 2,308 $ 40,000 $ 438,178 $ 21,909 $ 460,087 

New Jersey - $ 7,199 $ 62,410 $ 6,449 $ 205,643 $ 21,250 - $ 10 $ 750,539 $ 75,054 $ 0 $ 0 $ 29 $ 151 $ 40,000 $ 1,168,733 $ 58,437 $ 1,227,170 

New Mexico - $ 33,851 $ 3,711 $ 384 $ 84,587 $ 8,741 - $ 205 $ 442,948 $ 44,295 $ 13 $ 702 $ 3,329 $ 26,784 $ 40,000 $ 689,548 $ 34,477 $ 724,026 

New York - $ 46,360 $ 17,342 $ 8,960 $ 576,584 $ 59,580 - $ 172 $ 1,784,854 $ 178,485 $ 2 $ 8 $ 1,736 $ 8,056 $ 40,000 $ 2,722,138 $ 136,107 $ 2,858,245 

North Carolina - $ 84,919 $ 1,665 $ 172 $ 34,901 $ 3,606 - $ 125,506 $ 656,236 $ 65,624 $ 514 $ 3,931 $ 1,067 $ 571 $ 40,000 $ 1,018,713 $ 50,936 $ 1,069,649 

North Dakota $ 165,376 $ 17,089 $ 35,014 $ 3,618 $ 216,353 $ 22,356 $ 100 $ 10 $ 83,506 $ 8,351 $ 43 $ 1,382 $ 516 $ 50,840 $ 40,000 $ 644,555 $ 32,228 $ 676,782 

Ohio - - $ 10,400 $ 4,299 $ 440,344 $ 45,502 - - $ 1,964,050 $ 196,405 $ 0 $ 65 $ 3,422 $ 10,099 $ 40,000 $ 2,714,586 $ 135,729 $ 2,850,315 

Oklahoma - $ 33,274 $ 114,500 $ 11,832 $ 478,807 $ 49,477 - - $ 735,973 $ 73,597 $ 16 $ 1,145 $ 1,544 $ 39,657 $ 40,000 $ 1,579,822 $ 78,991 $ 1,658,813 

Oregon - - $ 19,008 $ 1,964 $ 364,440 $ 37,659 - - $ 407,682 $ 40,768 $ 4 $ 969 $ 1,677 $ 15,364 $ 40,000 $ 929,536 $ 46,477 $ 976,012 

Pennsylvania - - $ 5,972 $ 617 $ 116,064 $ 11,993 - - $ 2,048,378 $ 204,838 $ 12 $ 25 $ 4 $ 89 $ 40,000 $ 2,427,993 $ 121,400 $ 2,549,392 

46
 
MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST -BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

State Group 1 (Non-local, paved) Group 2 (Local, paved) Group 3 (Unpaved) Roadway 

Inventory 

Conversion 

to LRS 

(office) 

Total QA/QC Grand Total 

State Roadways Non-State State maintained 

Local 

Non-State maintained 

Local 

State Roads (office) All others (office) 

Federal-Aid Non-Federal-Aid 

Field Office Field Office Field Office Field Office Field Office Urban Rural Urban Rural 

Rhode Island $ 33,699 $ 3,316 $ 3,787 $ 326 $ 31,146 $ 2,146 $ 794 $ 75 $ 184,807 $ 12,170 $ 0 $ 1 $ 96 $ 27 $ 40,000 $ 312,390 $ 15,620 $ 328,010 

South Carolina - - $ 355 $ 37 $ 18,760 $ 1,938 - - $ 395,010 $ 39,501 $1,569 $ 4,575 $ 1,282 $ 6,787 $ 40,000 $ 509,814 $ 25,491 $ 535,304 

South Dakota - $ 14,811 $ 10,884 $ 1,125 $ 283,760 $ 29,322 - $ 1 $ 125,699 $ 12,570 $ 13 $ 2,267 $ 569 $ 43,924 $ 40,000 $ 564,943 $ 28,247 $ 593,190 

Tennessee - $ 42,723 $ 21,100 $ 2,180 $ 410,872 $ 42,457 - - $ 1,635,172 $ 163,517 - $ 78 $ 156 $ 4,959 $ 40,000 $ 2,363,214 $ 118,161 $ 2,481,375 

Texas - - $ 49,328 $ 5,097 $ 606,369 $ 62,658 - - $ 3,128,303 $ 312,830 $ 367 $ 1,349 $ 15,367 $ 66,614 $ 40,000 $ 4,288,283 $ 214,414 $ 4,502,697 

Utah - - $ 12,706 $ 1,313 $ 146,101 $ 15,097 - - $ 384,904 $ 38,490 $ 21 $ 1,094 $ 1,431 $ 14,909 $ 40,000 $ 656,067 $ 32,803 $ 688,870 

Vermont $ 107,431 $ 7,401 $ 9,427 $ 649 $ 78,881 $ 5,434 - - $ 115,771 $ 7,624 - $ 173 $ 363 $ 5,051 $ 40,000 $ 378,205 $ 18,910 $ 397,115 

Virginia - - $ 26,242 $ 2,712 $ 87,570 $ 9,049 - - $ 316,779 $ 31,678 $ 257 $ 6,243 $ 360 $ 464 $ 40,000 $ 521,354 $ 26,068 $ 547,422 

Washington - - $ 92,899 $ 9,600 $ 459,336 $ 47,465 - - $ 768,800 $ 76,880 $ 1 $ 303 $ 1,258 $ 22,063 $ 40,000 $ 1,518,604 $ 75,930 $ 1,594,534 

West Virginia $ 366,915 $ 37,915 $ 951 $ 98 $ 9,865 $ 1,019 $333,473 $ 33,347 $ 79,970 $ 7,997 $ 103 $ 7,450 $ 127 $ 563 $ 40,000 $ 919,794 $ 45,990 $ 965,783 

Wisconsin - - $ 23,948 $ 2,475 $ 626,395 $ 64,727 - - $ 1,640,505 $ 164,051 - $ 135 $ 595 $ 13,087 $ 40,000 $ 2,575,918 $ 128,796 $ 2,704,714 

Wyoming - - $ 3,382 $ 932 $ 217,357 $ 14,973 - - $ 138,894 $ 9,147 $ 8 $ 1,997 $ 868 $ 9,461 $ 40,000 $ 437,019 $ 21,851 $ 458,870 

US Total $1,054,921 $597,484 $1,619,566 $199,793 $14,303,968 $1,457,786 $336,339 $159,586 $38,833,180 $3,833,623 $4,934 $61,993 $140,057 $956,094 $2,040,000 $65,599,322 $3,279,966 $68,879,288 

US Average $ 20,685 $ 11,715 $ 31,756 $ 3,918 $ 280,470 $ 28,584 $ 6,595 $ 3,129 $ 761,435 $ 75,169 $ 97 $ 1,216 $ 2,746 $ 18,747 $ 40,000 $ 1,286,261 $ 64,313 $ 1,350,574 

47
 
 

 - -

- -

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A4. Cost of Intersection Data Collection by State. 

State Identify 

Intersections and 

Identifiers7 

Data Collection Non 

Local/Non Local and Non 

Local/Local 

Total QA/QC Grand Total 

Alabama $12,480 $50,445 $62,925 $3,146 $66,072 

Alaska $12,480 $6,523 $19,003 $950 $19,953 

Arizona $12,480 $38,362 $50,842 $2,542 $53,384 

Arkansas $12,480 $40,525 $53,005 $2,650 $55,655 

California $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Colorado $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Connecticut $12,480 $15,999 $28,479 $1,424 $29,903 

Delaware $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Dist. of Columbia $12,480 $2,185 $14,665 $733 $15,398 

Florida $12,480 $102,223 $114,703 $5,735 $120,438 

Georgia $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Hawaii $12,480 $2,998 $15,478 $774 $16,252 

Idaho $12,480 $13,913 $26,393 $1,320 $27,713 

Illinois $12,480 $82,149 $94,629 $4,731 $99,360 

Indiana $12,480 $43,912 $56,392 $2,820 $59,212 

Iowa $12,480 $37,290 $49,770 $2,488 $52,258 

Kansas $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Kentucky $12,480 $36,049 $48,529 $2,426 $50,955 

Louisiana $12,480 $32,592 $45,072 $2,254 $47,325 

Maine $12,480 $9,665 $22,145 $1,107 $23,252 

Maryland $- $24,975 $24,975 $1,249 $26,224 

Massachusetts $12,480 $33,986 $46,466 $2,323 $48,790 

Michigan $12,480 $63,184 $75,664 $3,783 $79,447 

Minnesota $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Mississippi $12,480 $27,462 $39,942 $1,997 $41,939 

Missouri $- $60,766 $60,766 $3,038 $63,805 

Montana $12,480 $15,000 $27,480 $1,374 $28,854 

Nebraska $12,480 $26,536 $39,016 $1,951 $40,967 

Nevada $12,480 $20,649 $33,129 $1,656 $34,785 

New Hampshire $- $- $- $- $-

New Jersey $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

New Mexico $12,480 $21,599 $34,079 $1,704 $35,783 

New York $12,480 $72,081 $84,561 $4,228 $88,789 

North Carolina $12,480 $64,769 $77,249 $3,862 $81,112 

North Dakota $12,480 $14,535 $27,015 $1,351 $28,366 

Ohio $12,480 $61,429 $73,909 $3,695 $77,605 

Oklahoma $12,480 $39,959 $52,439 $2,622 $55,061 

Oregon $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Pennsylvania $12,480 $80,195 $92,675 $4,634 $97,309 

Rhode Island $12,480 $7,344 $19,824 $991 $20,816 

South Carolina $12,480 $39,821 $52,301 $2,615 $54,916 

South Dakota $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

Tennessee $12,480 $50,276 $62,756 $3,138 $65,894 

Texas $12,480 $163,765 $176,245 $8,812 $185,057 

Utah $12,480 $19,302 $31,782 $1,589 $33,371 

Vermont $- $- $- $- $-

Virginia $12,480 $41,464 $53,944 $2,697 $56,641 

Washington $12,480 $- $12,480 $624 $13,104 

West Virginia $12,480 $14,905 $27,385 $1,369 $28,754 

Wisconsin $- $- $- $- $-

Wyoming $12,480 $5,426 $17,906 $895 $18,801 

US Total $574,080 $1,484,259 $2,058,339 $102,917 $2,161,256 

US Average $11,256 $29,103 $40,360 $2,018 $42,378 

Notes: 

7. If State is missing any of the intersection identifiers (State or local), apply base cost to run model. 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A5. Cost of Ramp Data Collection by State. 

State Identify Ramps and 

Identifiers8 

Data Collection Total QA/QC Grand Total 

Alabama $ 8,320 $ 15,593 $ 23,913 $ 1,196 $ 25,109 

Alaska $ 8,320 $ 832 $ 9,152 $ 458 $ 9,610 

Arizona $ 8,320 $ 9,028 $ 17,348 $ 867 $ 18,215 

Arkansas $ 8,320 $ 10,498 $ 18,818 $ 941 $ 19,759 

California $ 8,320 $ 54,258 $ 62,578 $ 3,129 $ 65,706 

Colorado - - - - -

Connecticut $ 8,320 $ 7,067 $ 15,387 $ 769 $ 16,157 

Delaware - $ 1,653 $ 1,653 $ 83 $ 1,735 

Dist. of Columbia $ 8,320 $ 1,277 $ 9,597 $ 480 $ 10,076 

Florida $ 8,320 $ 19,514 $ 27,834 $ 1,392 $ 29,226 

Georgia $ 8,320 $ 17,770 $ 26,090 $ 1,305 $ 27,395 

Hawaii $ 8,320 $ 1,128 $ 9,448 $ 472 $ 9,921 

Idaho $ 8,320 $ 3,682 $ 12,002 $ 600 $ 12,602 

Illinois $ 8,320 $ 17,896 $ 26,216 $ 1,311 $ 27,527 

Indiana $ 8,320 $ 8,604 $ 16,924 $ 846 $ 17,770 

Iowa $ 8,320 $ 10,373 $ 18,693 $ 935 $ 19,627 

Kansas $ 8,320 $ 11,980 $ 20,300 $ 1,015 $ 21,315 

Kentucky $ 8,320 $ 10,498 $ 18,818 $ 941 $ 19,759 

Louisiana $ 8,320 $ 10,202 $ 18,522 $ 926 $ 19,448 

Maine $ 8,320 $ 2,952 $ 11,272 $ 564 $ 11,836 

Maryland - $ 16,836 $ 16,836 $ 842 $ 17,678 

Massachusetts $ 8,320 $ 13,918 $ 22,238 $ 1,112 $ 23,350 

Michigan $ 8,320 $ 18,318 $ 26,638 $ 1,332 $ 27,969 

Minnesota $ 8,320 $ 12,128 $ 20,448 $ 1,022 $ 21,471 

Mississippi $ 8,320 $ 18,865 $ 27,185 $ 1,359 $ 28,544 

Missouri - - - - -

Montana $ 8,320 $ 3,887 $ 12,207 $ 610 $ 12,817 

Nebraska - - - - -

Nevada $ 8,320 $ 9,814 $ 18,134 $ 907 $ 19,041 

New Hampshire $ 8,320 $ 4,673 $ 12,993 $ 650 $ 13,643 

New Jersey $ 8,320 $ 20,130 $ 28,450 $ 1,422 $ 29,872 

New Mexico $ 8,320 $ 6,873 $ 15,193 $ 760 $ 15,953 

New York - $ 33,295 $ 33,295 $ 1,665 $ 34,960 

North Carolina $ 8,320 $ 18,625 $ 26,945 $ 1,347 $ 28,293 

North Dakota $ 8,320 $ 2,644 $ 10,964 $ 548 $ 11,513 

Ohio $ 8,320 $ 35,150 $ 43,470 $ 2,173 $ 45,643 

Oklahoma $ 8,320 $ 13,077 $ 21,397 $ 1,070 $ 22,467 

Oregon $ 8,320 $ 6,999 $ 15,319 $ 766 $ 16,085 

Pennsylvania $ 8,320 $ 21,521 $ 29,841 $ 1,492 $ 31,333 

Rhode Island $ 8,320 $ 4,012 $ 12,332 $ 617 $ 12,949 

South Carolina $ 8,320 $ 8,914 $ 17,234 $ 862 $ 18,095 

South Dakota $ 8,320 $ 5,357 $ 13,677 $ 684 $ 14,361 

Tennessee $ 8,320 $ 17,417 $ 25,737 $ 1,287 $ 27,024 

Texas $ 8,320 $ 88,944 $ 97,264 $ 4,863 $ 102,127 

Utah $ 8,320 $ 5,848 $ 14,168 $ 708 $ 14,876 

Vermont - $ 2,508 $ 2,508 $ 125 $ 2,633 

Virginia $ 8,320 $ 17,121 $ 25,441 $ 1,272 $ 26,713 

Washington - $ 9,882 $ 9,882 $ 494 $ 10,376 

West Virginia $ 8,320 $ 3,853 $ 12,173 $ 609 $ 12,781 

Wisconsin $ 8,320 $ 10,863 $ 19,183 $ 959 $ 20,142 

Wyoming $ 8,320 $ 3,568 $ 11,888 $ 594 $ 12,482 

US Total $ 357,760 $ 649,844 $ 1,007,604 $ 50,380 $ 1,057,984 

US Average $ 7,015 $ 12,742 $ 19,757 $ 988 $ 20,745 

Notes: 

8. If State is missing any of the ramp business elements (State), apply base cost to run model. Assume no ramps on local, non-Federal-aid roads. 

General Note: Cost for collecting Ramp AADT (191) and Year of Ramp AADT (192) is included in Segment cost 

49
 
 

 -

-

-

- - - - -

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION UPDATE 

Appendix A6. Cost of Volume Data Collection by State (in Dollars). 

State Group 1 (Non Local Paved Roads) Group 2 (Local Paved) Non 

Local/No 

n Local 

and Non 

Local/Loc 

al 

Intersecti 

ons 

Total QA/QC Grand 

Non Total State Roads Federal Aid Non State Roads Non Federal Aid Non State Non Federal Aid Segment 

Rural Total 

(Miles) 

Rural 

(Cost) 

Urban 

(Miles) 

Urban 

(Cost) 

Rural 

(Miles) 

Rural 

(Cost) 

Urban 

(Miles) 

Urban 

(Cost) 

Rural 

(Miles) 

Rural 

(Cost) 

Urban 

(Miles) 

Urban 

(Cost) 

Estimatio 

n (Cost) 

Alabama 141.1 13,546 37.2 17,868 707.8 67,953 186.7 17,927.5 1,427.5 137,040 890.3 427,345 16,640.0 698,320 25,642 723,961 36,198 760,160 

Alaska 24.9 2,393 13.5 6,463 23.7 2,278 12.8 1,230.9 44.6 4,286 63.6 30,518 16,640.0 63,809 3,316 67,125 3,356 70,481 

Arizona 42.9 4,121 221.5 106,313 187.8 18,033 193.9 18,611.3 497.1 47,717 879.5 422,163 16,640.0 633,599 19,500 653,098 32,655 685,753 

Arkansas 82.8 7,946 111.5 53,534 384.3 36,895 103.6 9,942.4 502.6 48,254 415.0 199,185 16,640.0 372,397 20,599 392,996 19,650 412,646 

California 1,010.6 97,021 1,383.7 664,172 752.0 72,196 1,029.7 98,846.4 1,956.0 187,781 3,035.8 1,457,185 16,640.0 2,593,842 62,752 2,656,593 132,830 2,789,423 

Colorado 88.0 8,448 190.2 91,289 392.6 37,692 169.7 16,291.5 268.4 25,762 662.5 318,024 16,640.0 514,146 18,244 532,390 26,620 559,010 

Connecticut 26.2 2,511 116.7 56,024 22.5 2,159 100.3 9,633.6 190.0 18,237 518.1 248,682 16,640.0 353,886 8,132 362,018 18,101 380,119 

Delaware 0.0 1 0.5 244 0.0 3 0.5 48.3 117.0 11,233 110.4 52,986 16,640.0 81,156 2,699 83,855 4,193 88,047 

Dist. of 

Columbia 

0.0 - 1.4 669 0.0 - 1.1 104.4 0.0 - 51.5 24,743 16,640.0 42,156 1,110 43,267 2,163 45,430 

Florida 298.6 28,667 500.3 240,156 324.8 31,181 435.4 41,794.2 507.4 48,715 3,202.9 1,537,379 16,640.0 1,944,531 51,961 1,996,492 99,825 2,096,316 

Georgia 706.5 67,826 288.5 138,486 619.7 59,494 253.1 24,294.8 1,422.9 136,594 1,455.3 698,563 16,640.0 1,141,898 33,964 1,175,862 58,793 1,234,655 

Hawaii 2.7 258 23.7 11,361 11.0 1,054 19.4 1,858.4 52.0 4,989 76.6 36,747 16,640.0 72,907 1,524 74,431 3,722 78,152 

Idaho 66.5 6,385 76.2 36,578 283.9 27,255 65.1 6,245.7 477.6 45,849 176.9 84,892 16,640.0 223,843 7,072 230,916 11,546 242,462 

Illinois 108.3 10,394 394.9 189,533 456.0 43,775 332.6 31,930.6 278.0 26,693 982.7 471,717 16,640.0 790,683 41,757 832,440 41,622 874,062 

Indiana 147.6 14,170 333.0 159,852 631.2 60,592 284.8 27,340.8 2,299.5 220,756 943.8 453,025 16,640.0 952,376 22,321 974,697 48,735 1,023,432 

Iowa 200.6 19,253 131.9 63,326 839.9 80,633 110.5 10,608.5 306.2 29,395 356.0 170,858 16,640.0 390,713 18,955 409,668 20,483 430,151 

Kansas 165.9 15,923 150.9 72,436 672.5 64,560 122.4 11,747.4 309.3 29,693 433.2 207,929 16,640.0 418,928 20,647 439,575 21,979 461,554 

Kentucky 0.9 85 42.4 20,373 4.3 416 41.7 4,003.2 1,815.6 174,296 466.9 224,126 16,640.0 439,939 18,324 458,263 22,913 481,176 

Louisiana 11.7 1,120 110.2 52,901 11.1 1,064 104.7 10,048.1 938.7 90,119 545.3 261,755 16,640.0 433,648 16,567 450,215 22,511 472,725 

Maine 0.8 82 1.3 636 4.2 405 1.3 126.2 403.1 38,702 95.2 45,710 16,640.0 102,300 4,913 107,212 5,361 112,573 

Maryland 93.4 8,970 146.4 70,252 81.9 7,858 128.2 12,309.0 443.0 42,526 645.7 309,945 16,640.0 468,499 12,695 481,194 24,060 505,254 

Massachusetts 14.1 1,353 374.9 179,967 52.9 5,074 281.3 27,004.5 113.7 10,911 916.1 439,733 16,640.0 680,682 17,276 697,958 34,898 732,856 

Michigan 1,003.4 96,329 441.1 211,739 764.1 73,356 335.9 32,248.7 738.9 70,935 660.9 317,223 16,640.0 818,471 32,117 850,588 42,529 893,117 

Minnesota 1,240.0 119,042 229.6 110,205 1,033.4 99,206 191.3 18,368.2 559.5 53,708 658.2 315,943 16,640.0 733,111 24,811 757,922 37,896 795,818 

Mississippi 103.8 9,969 117.3 56,309 431.0 41,378 97.4 9,348.5 1,264.5 121,391 335.3 160,928 16,640.0 415,964 13,959 429,923 21,496 451,419 

Missouri 23.8 2,280 185.3 88,951 28.5 2,733 177.7 17,060.5 1,033.3 99,197 865.2 415,291 16,640.0 642,152 30,888 673,040 33,652 706,692 

Montana 366.9 35,219 25.4 12,210 341.6 32,795 23.7 2,274.0 226.8 21,773 101.7 48,793 16,640.0 169,705 7,624 177,330 8,866 186,196 

Nebraska 485.8 46,641 69.0 33,143 424.0 40,705 60.3 5,785.0 210.1 20,169 216.8 104,043 16,640.0 267,127 13,489 280,615 14,031 294,646 

Nevada 21.2 2,033 88.1 42,276 98.5 9,457 81.9 7,864.9 192.6 18,485 245.7 117,924 16,640.0 214,680 10,496 225,176 11,259 236,434 

New Hampshire 3.5 339 34.5 16,569 16.6 1,593 32.4 3,112.4 243.7 23,396 167.5 80,392 16,640.0 142,043 4,696 146,739 7,337 154,076 

New Jersey 51.5 4,944 382.4 183,544 49.4 4,741 293.4 28,161.9 202.5 19,440 1,187.6 570,032 16,640.0 827,503 20,513 848,016 42,401 890,417 

New Mexico 43.8 4,207 103.3 49,602 42.0 4,031 99.0 9,503.4 647.1 62,117 177.0 84,966 16,640.0 231,066 10,979 242,045 12,102 254,147 

New York 115.8 11,113 526.7 252,811 503.1 48,301 457.8 43,952.5 1,697.9 163,001 1,610.5 773,058 16,640.0 1,308,876 36,640 1,345,516 67,276 1,412,792 

50
 
 

 -

-

-

- - - - -

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION UPDATE
 

State Group 1 (Non Local Paved Roads) Group 2 (Local Paved) Non 

Local/No 

n Local 

and Non 

Local/Loc 

al 

Intersecti 

ons 

Total QA/QC Grand 

Non Total State Roads Federal Aid Non State Roads Non Federal Aid Non State Non Federal Aid Segment 

Rural Total 

(Miles) 

Rural 

(Cost) 

Urban 

(Miles) 

Urban 

(Cost) 

Rural 

(Miles) 

Rural 

(Cost) 

Urban 

(Miles) 

Urban 

(Cost) 

Rural 

(Miles) 

Rural 

(Cost) 

Urban 

(Miles) 

Urban 

(Cost) 

Estimatio 

n (Cost) 

North Carolina 17.9 1,719 43.0 20,660 17.1 1,640 41.1 3,943.9 2,144.7 205,887 1,394.8 669,495 16,640.0 919,985 32,923 952,908 47,645 1,000,553 

North Dakota 389.0 37,341 30.0 14,387 334.8 32,140 25.8 2,476.5 109.6 10,522 45.2 21,709 16,640.0 135,215 7,388 142,603 7,130 149,733 

Ohio 361.9 34,746 368.2 176,715 404.6 38,845 329.3 31,610.2 2,074.0 199,105 1,563.3 750,374 16,640.0 1,248,035 31,225 1,279,260 63,963 1,343,223 

Oklahoma 814.2 78,159 174.7 83,850 657.0 63,076 141.0 13,533.5 821.4 78,859 541.5 259,904 16,640.0 594,021 20,312 614,333 30,717 645,049 

Oregon 121.4 11,656 158.7 76,172 481.5 46,227 125.9 12,083.3 349.8 33,581 407.3 195,515 16,640.0 391,875 10,310 402,184 20,109 422,294 

Pennsylvania 33.6 3,227 169.8 81,496 32.0 3,069 161.5 15,501.6 2,569.2 246,648 1,642.7 788,512 16,640.0 1,155,092 40,764 1,195,856 59,793 1,255,649 

Rhode Island 4.9 467 35.0 16,799 4.2 406 30.4 2,916.5 39.1 3,752 187.7 90,086 16,640.0 131,066 3,733 134,799 6,740 141,539 

South Carolina 17.3 1,664 14.5 6,972 17.0 1,633 14.3 1,368.6 851.2 81,712 490.0 235,202 16,640.0 345,191 20,241 365,432 18,272 383,704 

South Dakota 105.9 10,162 34.3 16,483 444.1 42,636 28.8 2,766.1 136.6 13,118 96.1 46,146 16,640.0 147,951 8,110 156,061 7,803 163,864 

Tennessee 522.2 50,136 197.7 94,900 496.7 47,687 188.1 18,053.0 2,103.4 201,925 924.7 443,860 16,640.0 873,201 25,556 898,756 44,938 943,694 

Texas 307.7 29,543 785.1 376,841 284.6 27,321 726.0 69,698.3 2,641.8 253,608 3,171.4 1,522,264 16,640.0 2,295,916 83,243 2,379,159 118,958 2,498,117 

Utah 197.4 18,953 67.2 32,279 181.6 17,437 61.9 5,939.2 327.3 31,425 386.4 185,450 16,640.0 308,124 9,811 317,935 15,897 333,832 

Vermont 16.1 1,545 17.6 8,461 71.9 6,902 15.7 1,511.5 101.8 9,773 39.4 18,901 16,640.0 63,735 2,816 66,551 3,328 69,879 

Virginia 23.8 2,288 165.9 79,612 18.3 1,760 127.6 12,251.0 1,202.7 115,462 862.1 413,815 16,640.0 641,827 21,077 662,904 33,145 696,049 

Washington 125.6 12,056 292.5 140,389 522.3 50,139 243.3 23,354.4 621.5 59,660 802.2 385,076 16,640.0 687,315 22,276 709,591 35,480 745,070 

West Virginia 2.6 251 15.4 7,400 2.4 229 14.1 1,349.8 592.8 56,906 172.9 82,975 16,640.0 165,750 7,576 173,326 8,666 181,992 

Wisconsin 192.7 18,497 280.2 134,484 808.8 77,643 235.2 22,580.4 2,285.3 219,392 752.9 361,396 16,640.0 850,633 24,833 875,466 43,773 919,239 

Wyoming 182.5 17,518 32.2 15,454 211.6 20,317 29.9 2,867.8 101.5 9,749 71.2 34,199 16,640.0 116,745 2,758 119,503 5,975 125,478 

US Total 10,130 972,515 9,736 4,673,144 15,187 1,457,971 8,369 803,433 40,461 3,884,244 36,701 17,616,683 16,640 29,424,630 1,011,134 31,267,764 1,563,388 32,831,152 

US Average 199 19,069 191 91,630 298 28,588 164 15,754 793 76,162 720 345,425 16,640 593,267 19,826 613,093 30,655 643,748 

Notes: 

Fixed one time model development cost is applied to all States to estimate AADT on local roads
 

Cost of collection on State roads is not included in this analysis as AADT is a full extent element and is already collected for all States roads.
 

51
 
 

- -

 

- -

-

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION UPDATE 

Appendix A7. Cost of Data Maintenance by State. 

State Segments (Non 

Local and Local) 

Segments (Non 

Local and Local) 

Non Local/Non 

Local and Non 

Local/Local 

Intersections 

Ramps Volumes Total QA/QC Grand Total 

Alabama $3,991 $2,874 $2,446 $408 $100,272 $109,991 $5,500 $115,491 

Alaska $537 $134 $316 $22 $12,180 $13,189 $659 $13,849 

Arizona $1,815 $1,707 $1,860 $236 $63,395 $69,013 $3,451 $72,464 

Arkansas $2,938 $1,138 $1,965 $275 $65,694 $72,009 $3,600 $75,609 

California $7,752 $6,190 $5,986 $1,419 $326,675 $348,021 $17,401 $365,422 

Colorado $2,349 $1,154 $1,740 $263 $68,224 $73,731 $3,687 $77,418 

Connecticut $812 $878 $776 $185 $44,701 $47,351 $2,368 $49,718 

Delaware $218 $282 $257 $43 $8,809 $9,610 $480 $10,090 

Dist. of Columbia $56 $64 $106 $33 $4,023 $4,283 $214 $4,497 

Florida $3,656 $4,601 $4,956 $510 $174,864 $188,588 $9,429 $198,017 

Georgia $4,597 $3,569 $3,240 $465 $131,936 $143,806 $7,190 $150,996 

Hawaii $207 $159 $145 $30 $8,488 $9,029 $451 $9,481 

Idaho $1,490 $812 $675 $96 $32,425 $35,497 $1,775 $37,272 

Illinois $3,825 $1,563 $3,983 $468 $135,120 $144,959 $7,248 $152,207 

Indiana $4,020 $4,022 $2,129 $225 $115,889 $126,285 $6,314 $132,599 

Iowa $3,575 $821 $1,808 $271 $71,248 $77,723 $3,886 $81,609 

Kansas $3,157 $921 $1,969 $313 $67,073 $73,433 $3,672 $77,105 

Kentucky $2,913 $2,830 $1,748 $275 $61,037 $68,802 $3,440 $72,242 

Louisiana $2,045 $1,840 $1,580 $267 $63,431 $69,163 $3,458 $72,621 

Maine $1,049 $618 $469 $77 $20,487 $22,700 $1,135 $23,835 

Maryland $1,194 $1,350 $1,211 $440 $51,451 $55,646 $2,782 $58,429 

Massachusetts $1,471 $1,277 $1,648 $364 $89,046 $93,805 $4,690 $98,495 

Michigan $4,691 $1,736 $3,063 $479 $137,436 $147,406 $7,370 $154,776 

Minnesota $4,940 $1,510 $2,367 $317 $105,875 $115,009 $5,750 $120,760 

Mississippi $2,862 $1,984 $1,331 $493 $61,894 $68,565 $3,428 $71,993 

Missouri $4,579 $2,354 $2,946 $388 $105,950 $116,217 $5,811 $122,028 

Montana $1,731 $407 $727 $102 $28,128 $31,095 $1,555 $32,650 

Nebraska $2,062 $529 $1,287 $123 $39,359 $43,360 $2,168 $45,528 

Nevada $949 $543 $1,001 $257 $29,359 $32,109 $1,605 $33,715 

New Hampshire $565 $510 $448 $122 $16,677 $18,322 $916 $19,238 

New Jersey $1,396 $1,724 $1,957 $526 $88,502 $94,105 $4,705 $98,810 

New Mexico $1,719 $1,022 $1,047 $180 $42,144 $46,112 $2,306 $48,418 

New York $4,596 $4,102 $3,495 $871 $170,522 $183,586 $9,179 $192,765 

North Carolina $3,548 $4,389 $3,140 $487 $113,665 $125,230 $6,261 $131,491 

North Dakota $1,723 $192 $705 $69 $27,343 $30,031 $1,502 $31,533 

Ohio $4,409 $4,510 $2,978 $919 $147,399 $160,216 $8,011 $168,226 

Oklahoma $3,783 $1,690 $1,937 $342 $82,316 $90,068 $4,503 $94,572 

Oregon $2,684 $939 $983 $183 $63,109 $67,898 $3,395 $71,293 

52
 
 

- -

 

- -

-

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION UPDATE
 

State Segments (Non 

Local and Local) 

Segments (Non 

Local and Local) 

Non Local/Non 

Local and Non 

Local/Local 

Intersections 

Ramps Volumes Total QA/QC Grand Total 

Pennsylvania $4,396 $5,223 $3,888 $563 $154,413 $168,483 $8,424 $176,907 

Rhode Island $232 $281 $356 $105 $13,756 $14,730 $737 $15,467 

South Carolina $2,862 $1,663 $1,931 $233 $74,650 $81,339 $4,067 $85,406 

South Dakota $1,990 $289 $774 $140 $31,969 $35,162 $1,758 $36,920 

Tennessee $3,494 $3,755 $2,438 $456 $96,248 $106,390 $5,320 $111,710 

Texas $12,372 $7,208 $7,940 $2,326 $369,517 $399,363 $19,968 $419,331 

Utah $1,200 $885 $936 $153 $33,905 $37,078 $1,854 $38,932 

Vermont $539 $175 $269 $66 $10,576 $11,625 $581 $12,206 

Virginia $2,988 $2,560 $2,010 $448 $89,005 $97,012 $4,851 $101,862 

Washington $3,107 $1,765 $2,125 $258 $91,683 $98,938 $4,947 $103,885 

West Virginia $1,561 $949 $723 $101 $34,031 $37,365 $1,868 $39,233 

Wisconsin $4,520 $3,767 $2,369 $284 $112,448 $123,388 $6,169 $129,558 

Wyoming $1,155 $214 $263 $93 $22,132 $23,858 $1,193 $25,051 

US Total $140,321 $95,681 $96,447 $17,770 $4,110,477 $4,460,695 $223,035 $4,683,730 

US Average $2,751 $1,876 $1,891 $348 $80,598 $87,465 $4,373 $91,838 

53
 
 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A8. Data Collection Management and Administration Costs. 

STATE M&A 

Alabama $152,470 

Alaska $35,935 

Arizona $180,519 

Arkansas $199,227 

California $260,000 

Colorado $193,749 

Connecticut $74,007 

Delaware $11,600 

Dist. of Columbia $8,830 

Florida $260,000 

Georgia $191,552 

Hawaii $16,321 

Idaho $110,005 

Illinois $124,316 

Indiana $192,954 

Iowa $85,076 

Kansas $249,892 

Kentucky $96,693 

Louisiana $77,763 

Maine $26,753 

Maryland $70,703 

Massachusetts $87,097 

Michigan $164,727 

Minnesota $137,462 

Mississippi $97,841 

Missouri $108,697 

Montana $132,476 

Nebraska $168,603 

Nevada $93,076 

New Hampshire $31,390 

New Jersey $108,028 

New Mexico $141,017 

New York $260,000 

North Carolina $174,153 

North Dakota $43,320 

Ohio $215,839 

Oklahoma $119,070 

Oregon $136,146 

Pennsylvania $260,000 

Rhode Island $25,166 

South Carolina $88,013 

South Dakota $39,226 

Tennessee $175,899 

Texas $260,000 

Utah $111,637 

Vermont $23,481 

Virginia $66,341 

Washington $218,797 

West Virginia $59,466 

Wisconsin $182,205 

Wyoming $63,145 

US Total $6,410,685 

US Average $125,700 

Notes: 

Assume M&A costs are 5% of data collection costs, up to $260K. 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A9. Miscellaneous One Time and Annual Costs. 

STATE 

One time Cost Annual Ongoing Costs 

Implementation 

Plan (One time 

cost) 

Segments Field 

collection, LiDAR 

mobilization 

Local 

Partner 

Liaison 

Formatting & 

Analyzing 

Enhance Data 

Desktop and 

web application 

(first two years) 

Desktop and web 

application (annually 

starting year 3) 

Alabama $100,000 $265,000 $285,072 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Alaska $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Arizona $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Arkansas $100,000 $265,000 $280,344 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

California $100,000 $265,000 $491,397 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Colorado $100,000 $265,000 $247,868 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Connecticut $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Delaware $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Dist. of Columbia $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Florida $100,000 $265,000 $341,121 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Georgia $100,000 $265,000 $351,464 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Hawaii $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Idaho $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Illinois $100,000 $265,000 $404,145 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Indiana $100,000 $265,000 $272,407 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Iowa $100,000 $265,000 $320,426 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Kansas $100,000 $265,000 $393,718 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Kentucky $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Louisiana $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Maine $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Maryland $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Massachusetts $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Michigan $100,000 $265,000 $341,743 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Minnesota $100,000 $265,000 $388,731 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Mississippi $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Missouri $100,000 $265,000 $369,540 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Montana $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Nebraska $100,000 $265,000 $262,632 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Nevada $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

New Hampshire $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

New Jersey $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

New Mexico $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

New York $100,000 $265,000 $321,185 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

North Carolina $100,000 $265,000 $296,977 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

North Dakota $100,000 $265,000 $243,183 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Ohio $100,000 $265,000 $345,187 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Oklahoma $100,000 $265,000 $315,898 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Oregon $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Pennsylvania $100,000 $265,000 $335,569 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Rhode Island $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

South Carolina $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

South Dakota $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Tennessee $100,000 $265,000 $267,464 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Texas $100,000 $265,000 $876,988 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Utah $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Vermont $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Virginia $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Washington $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

West Virginia $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Wisconsin $100,000 $265,000 $322,265 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

Wyoming $100,000 $265,000 $235,000 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

US Total $5,100,000 $13,515,000 $14,655,321 $6,375,000 $3,978,000 $790,500 

US Average $100,000 $265,000 $287,359 $125,000 $78,000 $15,500 

55
 
 

State 

Undiscounted 3.0% 7.0% 

Alabama $13,563,345 $10,357,181 $7,597,256 

Alaska $8,739,344 $6,673,341 $4,929,206 

Arizona $12,597,626 $9,976,921 $7,719,798 

Arkansas $13,896,146 $11,085,671 $8,677,657 

California $25,795,818 $19,685,784 $14,398,816 

Colorado $13,189,417 $10,524,232 $8,236,134 

Connecticut $10,041,894 $7,709,071 $5,726,737 

Delaware $8,175,605 $6,154,301 $4,453,268 

Dist. of Columbia $8,038,999 $6,058,869 $4,394,303 

Florida $21,076,418 $16,818,338 $13,108,662 

Georgia $16,143,460 $12,313,930 $9,015,302 

Hawaii $8,266,190 $6,231,734 $4,516,856 

Idaho $10,623,310 $8,323,880 $6,361,844 

Illinois $15,749,401 $11,871,355 $8,572,372 

Indiana $14,412,812 $11,061,248 $8,158,105 

Iowa $12,344,667 $9,331,338 $6,768,136 

Kansas $17,135,187 $13,698,539 $10,758,068 

Kentucky $10,834,158 $8,257,779 $6,050,890 

Louisiana $10,441,950 $7,927,290 $5,783,159 

Maine $8,686,569 $6,554,781 $4,754,287 

Maryland $10,094,650 $7,665,332 $5,594,833 

Massachusetts $11,000,814 $8,342,411 $6,076,019 

Michigan $15,448,429 $11,741,777 $8,562,011 

Minnesota $15,291,603 $11,584,789 $8,416,953 

Mississippi $10,854,779 $8,275,641 $6,065,737 

Missouri $14,340,687 $10,822,397 $7,829,009 

Montana $11,030,367 $8,777,847 $6,856,718 

Nebraska $12,494,655 $9,986,872 $7,842,594 

Nevada $10,217,908 $7,964,663 $6,046,772 

New Hampshire $8,719,486 $6,592,161 $4,792,076 

New Jersey $11,444,782 $8,714,945 $6,376,588 

New Mexico $11,430,867 $9,069,026 $7,051,706 

New York $19,515,544 $15,518,110 $12,050,280 

North Carolina $14,469,277 $11,249,115 $8,495,636 

North Dakota $9,297,898 $7,035,506 $5,117,199 

Ohio $16,775,853 $12,822,081 $9,407,517 

Oklahoma $13,154,277 $9,993,861 $7,289,387 

Oregon $11,649,365 $9,132,676 $6,980,877 

Pennsylvania $18,774,209 $14,850,785 $11,457,775 

Rhode Island $8,535,881 $6,445,790 $4,679,993 

South Carolina $10,836,500 $8,343,212 $6,229,491 

South Dakota $9,132,006 $6,901,572 $5,013,002 

Costs, 2015 - 2036 (2014 Dollars) 

Net Present Value of Total Data Collection and Maintenance 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION 

Appendix A10. Net Present Value of Total Data Collection and Maintenance Costs by State for undiscounted, 3.0% 

and 7.0% discount rates, 2015 - 2036 (2014 Dollars). 

56 
 

 

- 

Tennessee $13,667,792 $10,489,322 $7,738,109 

Texas $33,416,886 $25,182,002 $18,142,817 

Utah $10,680,854 $8,367,553 $6,392,999 

Vermont $8,454,784 $6,384,508 $4,635,838 

Virginia $10,612,164 $8,008,600 $5,800,678 

Washington $13,842,107 $11,010,950 $8,567,774 

West Virginia $9,589,479 $7,281,236 $5,316,039 

Wisconsin $15,091,720 $11,535,418 $8,467,572 

Wyoming $9,467,867 $7,302,720 $5,467,363 

US Total $659,085,806 $508,008,461 $378,742,218 

US Average $12,923,251 $9,960,950 $7,426,318 

MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATION
 

State 

Net Present Value of Total Data Collection and Maintenance 

Costs, 2015 2036 (2014 Dollars) 

Undiscounted 3.0% 7.0% 

57
 
Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety E71-115 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 201590 

Telephone: 202-366-2288 

Fax: 202-493-3222 

FHWA-SA-16-035