Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/03/28/2014-06681/highway-safety-improvement-program
Timestamp: 2015-04-27 22:14:52
Document Index: 485736796

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 924', 'ART 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924']

Federal Register | Highway Safety Improvement Program
Dates: Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2014.
-17482 (19 pages)
Document Number: 2014-06681
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-06681 Related Topics
Highway Safety Improvement Program (MAP-21) 4 actions from March 28th, 2014 to August 2015
79 FR 30508
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.1Purpose
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.3Definitions
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.5Policy
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.7Program Structure
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.9Planning
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.11Implementation
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.13Evaluation
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.15Reporting
Discussion of Proposed Addition of Section 924.17MIRE Fundamental Data Elements
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question Back to Top
The MAP-21 also requires the DOT to establish the update cycle for Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) [23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(A)], the content and schedule for the HSIP report [23 U.S.C. 148(h)(2)], and a subset of model roadway elements (a.k.a. Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE)) [23 U.S.C. 148(e)(2)(A)]. The NPRM proposes a 5-year SHSP update cycle, consistent with current practice in most States. The DOT proposes States continue to submit their HSIP reports on annual basis, by August 31 each year. In addition to existing reporting requirements and the proposed changes noted above, the DOT proposes that State DOTs document their safety performance targets in their annual HSIP report, and describe progress to achieve those safety performance targets in future HSIP reports. The DOT also proposes States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP reports, consistent with the Office of the Inspector General's recommendations in the recent HSIP Audit.
Currently, a majority of States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP reports. We believe that the proposed roadway data elements are the fundamental set of data elements that an agency would need in order to conduct enhanced safety analyses to improve safety investment decisionmaking through the HSIP. We believe the proposed roadway elements also have the potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP. The FHWA is proposing to require that States collect and use the same fundamental roadway elements that are recommended in the State Safety Data Systems Guidance published December 27, 2012.
Of the three requirements mandated by MAP-21 (i.e. MIRE FDE, SHSP update cycle, and HSIP Report Content and Schedule) and addressed in this proposed rule, we believe that only the proposal regarding the MIRE FDE would result in additional costs. The SAFETEA-LU and the existing regulation require States to update their SHSP on a regular basis; the proposed rulemaking proposes that States update their SHSP every 5 years. The proposed rulemaking does not change the existing schedule for the HSIP report. The MAP-21 results in only minimal proposed changes to the HSIP report content related to reporting safety performance targets; however, additional costs as a result of this new content are negligible and the removal of the transparency report requirements reduces existing costs. Therefore, FHWA bases its cost-benefit analysis on the MIRE FDE component only and uses the “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” Report
Table 1—Total Estimated National Costs for MIRE FDE Back to Top
$17,239,277
$17,180,594
$16,895,724
$16,467,622
53,172,638
52,319,704
48,367,784
42,980,809
37,941,135
37,332,527
34,512,650
30,668,794
8,284,572
8,151,681
7,535,951
6,696,633
Interchange/Ramp locations
6,114,197
6,016,120
5,561,698
4,942,262
Maintenance of data system
154,945,661
147,701,120
117,370,098
83,834,343
3,449,812
3,394,474
3,138,075
2,788,571
228,807,387
220,595,892
185,771,683
146,071,346
The cost of data collection for an average State is estimated at $1,362,800 to complete the LRS and initial MIRE FDE collection efforts, $66,600 for management and administration costs,
and $2,896,100 for maintenance costs
over the analysis period of 2013-2029 (in 2013 U.S. dollars, at a 0.5% discount rate).
These estimates are net present value average costs on a per State basis. As such, across the 50 States and the District of Columbia, it is possible that the aggregate cost for LRS and initial data collection would be approximately $69.5 million, and the annual maintenance cost would approach $11.5 million.
The MIRE FDE are beneficial because collecting this roadway and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis process would improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. The FHWA did not estimate the benefits of this rule. Instead, FHWA has conducted a break-even analysis. Table 2 shows the reduction in fatalities and injuries due to improvements in safety investment decisionmaking with the use of the MIRE FDE that would be needed for the costs of the data collection to equal the benefits, and for the costs of the data collection to equal half of the benefits. Using the 2012 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,100,000 and $107,438 for an average injury, results in an estimated reduction of 0.38 fatalities and 24.77 injuries per average State over the 2013-2029 analysis period (at a 0.5% discount rate) would be needed to result in a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1:1.
To achieve a benefit/cost ratio of 2:1, fatalities would need to be reduced by 0.76 and injuries by 49.54 per average State over the same analysis period.
Table 2—Reduction in Fatalities and Injuries Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1 and 2:1 Back to Top
# of lives saved (fatalities)
# of severe injuries avoided
Based on a preliminary study that found relationships between State's use of roadway inventory data (in combination with their crash data in analyses supporting their safety investment decision making) and the magnitude of States' fatal-crash reduction,
and other anecdotal information, we believe that this level of benefit may be achievable.
Stakeholder Outreach Back to Top
Following extensive work on accommodating GAO's recommendations, FHWA published, “Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program”
on August 1, 2011. As part of addressing GAO's recommendations, FHWA engaged in efforts to obtain public input. The FHWA hosted a peer exchange at the 2009 Asset Management Conference, two Webinars in December 2009, and one listening session at the January 2010 Transportation Research Board meeting to obtain input on possible approaches to address the GAO's recommendations. These sessions were designed to reach local and State transportation officials, as well as professional transportation safety organizations. These sessions were attended by over 150 representatives of Federal, State, and local jurisdictions from across the country, as well as professional organizations. The purpose of these sessions was to gather feedback from stakeholders regarding mandatory roadway inventory elements and scheduling inventory data improvements, and to discuss other approaches from stakeholders regarding the collection and use of data for HSIP. During the Webinars and the listening session, FHWA listened carefully to the comments and concerns expressed by the stakeholders and used that information when developing the August 1, 2011, Guidance Memorandum. The August 1, 2011, guidance memorandum formed the basis for the State Safety Data System guidance published on December 27, 2012.
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking Back to Top
The FHWA proposes to add to the definition of “public road” that non- State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands are considered public roads pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(12)(D), (b)(2), (c)(2)(A)(i), (c)(2)(D)(ii) and (d)(1)(B)(viii).
The FHWA proposes to clarify paragraph (b) by specifying that the HSIP shall include a separate process for planning, implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP components described in section 924.7(a) on all public roads. The proposed revisions would clarify that these processes shall cover all public roads. The FHWA also proposes minor revisions to require that each process be developed in cooperation with the FHWA Division Administrator and in consultation with officials of the various units of local and tribal governments; it further adds that other safety stakeholders should also be consulted, as appropriate. The proposed changes clarify that each State would work with FHWA to develop appropriate processes and would consult with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of those processes. These changes reflect common practices in developing State Transportation Improvement Plans (STIP) under 23 CFR 450.216(b), (c), (d) and (f).” In addition, FHWA proposes to clarify that the processes developed are in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Finally, FHWA proposes to remove the existing last sentence of the regulation that references what the processes may include, since that language is more appropriate for guidance documents rather than regulation.
(a)(1) The proposed revision would group data as “safety data,” rather than specifying individual data components. The proposed language also would specify that roadway data shall include MIRE FDEs under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(5) and (f)(1) and (2), and railway-highway grade crossing data including all fields from the DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 130. The FHWA includes the use of MIRE FDEs consistent with guidance
issued by FHWA on December 27, 2012. The guidance memorandum provides background and guidance information on roadway and traffic data elements that can be used to improve safety investment decisionmaking through the HSIP. The Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0,
(a)(3 [formerly 3(ii)]) The FHWA proposes to specify the SHSP update cycle, as required by MAP-21, and a process for updating the SHSP. The FHWA is proposing a 5-year update cycle, which is the current practice in most States. For example, 39 States updated their SHSP or had an SHSP update underway within a 5-year timeframe. A number of those States are on the third version of their SHSP. Of those States that have not delivered an SHSP update, they have an update planned or an update well underway. Many of the elements are currently contained in former item (a)(3)(ii); however, FHWA proposes reordering and combining some of the items to reflect the sequence of actions States should take in HSIP planning. The proposed revisions highlight the importance of the SHSP in the HSIP planning process and that it is a separate element. Proposed sub-item (v) would require the SHSP performance-based goals be consistent with 23 U.S.C. 150 performance measures and be coordinated with other State highway safety programs. This would provide a necessary link to MAP-21 performance goals, tying the safety goals together so that the SHSP goals are consistent with those in 23 U.S.C. 150 and are coordinated with the NHTSA safety goals.
The FHWA proposes removing former paragraph (b) describing the 10 percent flex funds and former paragraph (c) describing funding set asides for improvements on high risk rural roads to reflect changes associated with MAP-21.
The FHWA proposes to relocate and clarify existing requirements related to SHSP implementation in new paragraph (c). As part of the existing HSIP planning process, States are currently required to determine priorities for SHSP implementation (sec. 924.9(a)(3)(ii)(I)) and propose a process for implementation of the plan (sec. 924.9(a)(3)(ii)(L)). The FHWA proposes to clarify that the SHSP shall include actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies would be implemented. The FHWA proposes this clarification to ensure that States develop actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies would be implemented contributing to significant reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. The inclusion of action steps or plans in a State SHSP is common practice. A number of State SHSPs
Finally, FHWA proposes minor revisions to paragraph (c) to remove references to the STP and NHS (now NHPP) since evaluation is not the primary intent of these programs; replace the reference to 23 U.S.C. 104(f) with 104(d) to reflect the change in legislation numbering; and update references to the U.S.C. The FHWA also proposes to add language to clarify that use of these funding categories is subject to the individual program's eligibility criteria and the allocation of costs based on the benefit to each funding category.
The FHWA proposes to add section 924.17 containing the MIRE FDEs for the collection of roadway data. The FHWA proposes to include this section to comply with section 1112 of MAP-21 that amends 23 U.S.C. 148 to require model inventory of roadway elements as part of data improvement. As mandated under 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2), the Secretary of Transportation shall (A) establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and (B) ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection. The proposed MIRE FDEs have been published in several FHWA documents as discussed previously in the Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.9 Planning. This proposed section would consist of two tables of MIRE FDEs listing the MIRE name and number for roadway segments, intersections, and interchanges or ramps as appropriate. Table 1 contains the proposed MIRE FDEs for Roads with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) greater than or equal to 400 vehicles per day. The FHWA recognizes that fewer data elements are required to characterize two-lane roads, which carry lower traffic volumes than other types of roadway. Therefore, FHWA proposes a reduced set of MIRE FDE for roadways with less than 400 AADT. Table 2 of Section 924.17 contains the proposed MIRE FDEs for Roads with AADT less than 400 vehicles per day. The Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0,
Table 3—Estimated Percent of Fatalities on <400 AADT Roads Back to Top
While FHWA is not proposing requirements for how States must collect and process the proposed MIRE FDE, FHWA envisions that States would do so using a variety of means, tools and technology, including, but not limited to: Data mining existing resources (e.g., existing State-maintained roadway inventories, as-built plans, and construction records), ground-based imaging (e.g., driving along roads and using mobile mapping and LiDAR), and aerial imaging (both with and without LiDAR). In addition, FHWA understands that State DOTs may need to work with local transportation authorities to collect the MIRE FDE. A description of various methodologies for collecting MIRE FDE is provided in the MIRE Data Collection Guidebook.
The specific roadway data requirements to estimate expected average crash experience on our roadways using safety performance functions and related safety management methods include the (1) type of roadway (e.g., two-lane rural highway versus six-lane urban freeway) and (2) exposure to crash risk (traffic volume, as measured by AADT, and length for roadway segments and ramps). The FHWA believes that the proposed MIRE FDE is the minimum subset of data elements needed to characterize the type of roadway and exposure on all public roads. The proposed MIRE FDE are the data elements whose effects on safety are best understood and most commonly applied by the highway safety profession, as documented in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, and that are most appropriate for use in the initial screening of the State's roadway network for sites with the greatest potential for safety improvement through infrastructure investment. The FHWA acknowledges that other variables may be equally (or more) important for predicting future crashes. Because the proposed MIRE FDE are only a subset of variables that may be useful for estimating expected crashes, it is possible that using only the proposed MIRE FDE in prediction models may produce biased results of future crashes. After it issues a final rule, FHWA will continue to work with stakeholders to explore other data elements for inclusion in the regulations or guidance to improve prediction models, or data elements to remove from regulations in the future. The FHWA invites comments on ways to minimize the cost of using the proposed MIRE FDE (e.g., incorporating the data into models), including any technical or other assistance that could be offered by FHWA.
Table 4—MIRE FDE Identifiers Back to Top
Unique junction identifier
Unique Interchange Identifier.
Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point
Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal.
Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point
Location Identifier for Roadway at End Ramp Terminal.
Federal-Aid/Route Type
Unique Approach Identifier.
Table 5—MIRE FDE Roadway Characteristics Back to Top
Intersection/Junction Geometry
Ramp Length.
Intersection/Junction Traffic Control
Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal.
AADT [for each intersecting road]
Roadway Type at End Ramp Terminal.
AADT Year [for each intersecting road]
Interchange Type.
Ramp AADT.
One/Two-Operations
Year of Ramp AADT.
Table 6—MIRE FDE for MAP-21 Reporting Requirements Back to Top
Type of Governmental Ownership
Type of Governmental Ownership.
The SAFETEA-LU and existing regulation currently require States to update their SHSP on a regular basis. This proposed rulemaking requires States to update their SHSP at least every 5 years. Thirty nine States updated their SHSP or had an SHSP update underway within a 5-year timeframe. A number of those States are on the third version of their SHSP. Of those States that have not delivered an SHSP update, they have an update planned or an update well underway. The FHWA has not estimated the cost of this proposal on States that update their SHSP less frequently than every 5 years. The FHWA believes the cost of this proposal is small, but invites comments on whether it would result in substantial costs, and how those costs could be estimated.
report was developed to support the MAP-21 State Safety Data Systems guidance published on December 27, 2012, and is the basis for the NPRM cost-benefit analysis since the proposed MIRE FDE in this NPRM are based upon the recommended MIRE FDE in the guidance. The objective of this report was to estimate the potential cost to States in extending their statewide linear referencing system (LRS) and collecting the MIRE FDEs for the purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through the HPMS or not already being collected for other purposes. The cost estimate does not include the cost of analyzing the MIRE FDE and performance measure data. States are currently required to conduct safety analysis using the best available data. States meet this requirement using a variety of methods, but most commonly States use crash frequency and crash rate to identify and prioritize potential locations for safety improvement. The MIRE FDE enables States to use advanced safety analysis methods to conduct this analysis. The FHWA does not believe that States will incur any additional costs from analyzing or otherwise using the proposed MIRE FDE. The FHWA believes that States will use methods incorporating the proposed MIRE FDE in lieu of existing methods. In other words, FHWA believes that States will discontinue using existing methods and, in place of these methods, conduct new analyses using the proposed MIRE FDE that will more accurately estimate the expected number of crashes at a location. The FHWA believes the overall net effect would be no new costs to States from using the MIRE FDE. The FHWA requests comments on whether this understanding is accurate, or whether States will incur new costs from using the proposed MIRE FDE to identify safety problems and projects. The basic cost-estimation methodology is to apply estimated unit costs to the public road mileage reported by States to the FHWA HPMS.
The MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation Report documents the various unit-cost estimates and assumptions applied to each State's public road mileage to estimate the breakouts of total mileage by AADT range and by LRS coverage, the number of intersections and ramps, and the corresponding cost of the various components. The data used as the basis for the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report are available on the docket in a supplemental spreadsheet titled “MIRE FDE Analysis Supplemental Tables.”
With the passage of MAP-21, States will be required to collect data on all public roads, including non-Federal-aid roads. To initiate this process, States will need to develop a common statewide relational LRS on all public roads that is linkable with crash data, as required by 23 CFR 1.5 and described in recent FHWA guidance
Table 7—Total Estimated National Costs for MIRE FDE Back to Top
Management & administration of data system
Table 8—Estimated Benefits Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1 and 2:1 Back to Top
# of injuries avoided
Using the 2012 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,100,000 and $107,438 for an injury,
One study on the effectiveness of the HSIP found:
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.
In 2010, 32,885 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, and an estimated 2.24 million people were injured. 30 31
The decrease in fatalities needed to achieve a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio represent a 0.4 percent reduction of annual fatalities using 2010 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 proposed MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs. We believe that the proposed 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.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (96, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes on small entities and anticipates that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rulemaking addresses the HSIP. As such, it affects only States, and States are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the RFA does not apply, and I hereby certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FHWA has evaluated this proposed rule for unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). As part of this evaluation, FHWA has determined that this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of greater than $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). The FHWA bases its analysis on the “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” Report.
Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to conducting or sponsoring a “collection of information” as defined by the PRA. The FHWA currently has OMB approval under “Highway Safety Improvement Programs” (OMB Control No: 2125-0025) to collect the information required by State's annual HSIP reports. The FHWA desires to concurrently update this request to reflect MAP-21 requirements as proposed in this NPRM.
The FHWA invites comments about our intention to request OMB approval for a new information collection to include the additional components required in this NPRM to reflect MAP-21 requirements described in the Supplementary Information below. Any action that might be contemplated in subsequent phases of this proceeding will be analyzed for the purpose of the PRA for its impact to this current information collection. The FHWA will submit the proposed collections of information to OMB for review and approval at the time the NPRM is issued and, accordingly, seeks comments.
The information contained in the annual HSIP reports provides FHWA with a means for monitoring the effectiveness of these programs and may be used by Congress for determining the future HSIP program structure and funding levels. In addition, FHWA uses the information collected as part of the HSIP reports to prepare an HSIP National Summary Report,
Section 148(h)(3), of title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to make the State's HSIP reports
and SHSP
A burden estimate for the HSIP Reports and MIRE FDE is summarized below in Table 5. The HSIP Reports burden represents the annual burden per each collection cycle; whereas, the MIRE FDE burden represents the initial data collection and maintenance burdens over the 2013-2029 analysis period, consistent with the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report. This report calculated the MIRE FDE costs as a dollar figure. To turn this into an equivalent hourly burden, we took the total costs (including technology and data collection by vendors) and turned them into labor hours ($55/hour, including overhead). Table 5—Burden Estimate for HSIP Reports and MIRE FDE Information Collection Back to Top
* Over 5 years of data collection.
** Over 16 year (2013-2029) analysis period (from the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report).
51 State Transportation Departments, including the District of Columbia.
Annually, by August 31st
Once, within 5 years of HSIP final rule publication
Estimated Average Burden per Response
25,987 hours *
52,656 hours.**
12,750 hours
1,325,360 hours *
2,685,475 hours.**
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 924 Back to Top
PART 924—HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Back to Top
924.1 Purpose.
924.3 Definitions.
924.7 Program structure.
924.11 Implementation.
924.13 Evaluation.
924.15 Reporting.
924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, and 315; 49 CFR 1.85.
Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities, or projects on a public road that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) and that either corrects or improves a hazardous road segment location or feature, or addresses a highway safety problem. Highway safety improvement projects can include both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. Examples of projects are described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a).
§ 924.7 Program structure.
(A) Are consistent with performance measures established by FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and (B) Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;
§ 924.13 Evaluation.
§ 924.15 Reporting.
(i) Describes the structure of the HSIP: This section shall describe how HSIP funds are administered in the State and include a summary of the methodology used to develop the programs and projects being implemented under the HSIP on all public roads. (ii) Describes the progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects: This section shall:
§ 924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements.
Table 1—MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Roads With AADT ≥ 400 Vehicles per Day Back to Top
^Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/collateral/mire_report.pdf.
* Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
Unique Junction Identifier (120).
Route Number (8) *
Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122).
Route/street Name (9) *
Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123).
Federal Aid/Route Type (21) ±*
Rural/Urban Designation (20) ±*
Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131).
Surface Type (23) *
AADT (79) [for Each Intersecting Road].
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) *
AADT Year (80) [for Each Intersecting Road].
Unique Approach Identifier (139).
One/Two-Way Operations (91) *
Interchange/Ramp
Number of Through Lanes (31) *
Unique Interchange Identifier (178).
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79) *
Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal (197).
AADT Year (80) *
Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal (201).
Type of Governmental Ownership (4) *
Ramp Length (187).
Table 2—MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Roads With AADT <400 Vehicles Per Day Back to Top
MIRE Name (MIRE Number) ^
Functional Class (19) *
Intersection/Junction Geometry (126).
1. Office of the Inspector General, FHWA Provides Sufficient Guidance and Assistance to Implement the Highway Safety Improvement Program but Could Do More to Assess Program Results, Report Number: MH-2013-055. March 26, 2013 is available at the following Internet Web site: http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/FHWA's%20Highway%20Safety%20Improvement%20Program%5E3-26-13.pdf.
2. Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafetydata.cfm.
3. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation”, FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf.
11. Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program, issued August 1, 2011 can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/memohsip072911/.
12. Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafetydata.cfm.
13. Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafetydata.cfm.
14. Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/collateral/mire_report.pdf.
15. “Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highways Safety Improvement Program (Background Report),” FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-11-39, published June 2011 is available at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/dcag.cfm.
16. According to MAP-21, the NHTSA safety performance goals are to be limited to those described in “Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies” (DOT HS 811 025). This report is available at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811025.pdf. The document found at this link can also be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
17. Individual State SHSPs are linked from the FHWA Office of Safety Web site at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/state_links.cfm.
18. Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/collateral/mire_report.pdf.
19. FHWA, MIRE Data Collection Guidebook, June 2013, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/datacollectionguidebook.pdf.
20. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation”, FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf.
21. HPMS, FHWA, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/index.cfm#hm.
23. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation,” FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf. The document found at this link can also be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
24. Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Memorandum on Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, February 28, 2013. http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-values-used-in-analysis.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Hughes, J. and Council, F.M., “How Good Data Lead to Better Safety Decisions,”ITE Journal, April 2012.
30. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—Fatality Analysis Reporting System: can be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
31. 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.
32. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation”, FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf.
33. This information collection request (ICR) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201308-2125-002.
34. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/nsbrpt_2009_2012.cfm.
35. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/.
36. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/state_links.cfm.