FHWA MIRE Reassessment ATSIP Traffic Records Forum August 9, 2016 Carol Tan, PhD, FHWA Nancy Lefler, VHB

Overview MIRE Background Purpose of Project Methodology Recommended Revisions Next Steps Questions/Comments

Background

MIRE MIRE – Model Inventory of Roadway Elements Recommended listing of roadway and traffic elements critical to safety management Data dictionary – definition, attributes, etc. V 1.0 released in 2010 The RSDP is contributing to the evolution of more robust roadway data systems and advanced data-driven safety capabilities through several programs including the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements - MIRE. MIRE is a listing of recommended roadway and traffic elements critical to safety management. The current version of MIRE, MIRE Version 1.0, provides a data dictionary with a definition, list of attributes (or coding), a priority rating, a reference indicating how the element relates to elements in the Highway Performance Monitoring System – HPMS; new safety tools such as the Highway Safety Manual; and when necessary, an illustration that provides supplemental information on the element. MIRE is intended as a guideline to help transportation agencies improve their roadway and traffic data inventories. It provides a basis for a standard of what can be considered a good and robust data inventory, and helps agencies move towards the use of performance measures. More information on MIRE is available on the FHWA Office of Safety Roadway Safety Data Program website at the address shown on the slide.

Why MIRE? Role of Improved Data Collection Safety data are the key to making sound decisions on the design and operation of roadways. By having the necessary roadway, traffic, and crash data, and the ability to merge those datasets, an agency can make more informed decisions and better target their safety funds. The ability to merge these data helps agencies to better: Develop relationships of safety to roadway features and user exposure; Identify location and characteristics of crashes; Determine appropriate countermeasures and strategies, for both spot and systemic treatments; and Evaluate the effectiveness of safety treatments. Improvements in the data collection effort can drive more informed decision making, which can lead to improved knowledge for decision makers to better target investments that provide the highest returns in reducing crashes and fatalities.

Federal Data Requirements MAP-21 / FAST ACT Requires States have in place a safety data system Requires States to collect a subset of MIRE – FDEs Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Requires geospatial network on all public roads FHWA Guidance on State Safety Data Systems: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/ssds_guidance.cfm Recognizing the importance of data in making sound safety decisions, the current transportation legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act - MAP-21, requires that as part of its State highway safety improvement program (HSIP), a State have in place a safety data system that can be used to perform analyses supporting the strategic and performance-based goals in the SHSP and HSIP. The legislation defines safety data as crash, roadway, and traffic data on a public road. It also includes, in the case of a railway-highway grade crossing, the characteristics of highway and train traffic, licensing, and vehicle data. MAP-21 required the Secretary to establish a subset of the MIRE that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety and ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection - also known as the Fundamental Data Elements - FDEs. States should incorporate an implementation plan for collecting MIRE FDEs into their next State Traffic Records Strategic Plan update, which is due July 1 of each year under 23 USC 405 (c)(3)(C). States should collect the FDEs on all public roads as soon as practicable in order to benefit from improved analyses as soon as possible. In addition to the MAP-21 requirements, 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. This Memorandum identified a Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) requirement for States to update their Linear Referencing System to include all public roadways within the State by June 15, 2014, in accordance with the HPMS information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget. This Linear Referencing System is a means to geolocate all safety data on a common highway basemap that includes all public roads. FHWA Office of Safety has released guidance on meeting these requirements at the link shown.

Current Status Five years since MIRE V 1.0. Advances in safety analyses techniques Increased awareness of the importance of quality data in safety analysis Additional Federal requirements Time to reassess whether MIRE Version 1.0 is meeting FHWA’s needs and the needs of its customers.

Project Purpose

Purpose Conduct assessment of MIRE V 1.0 Develop recommended revisions Develop MIRE V 2.0 Goal - Meet the needs of the safety community & improve compatibility w/ FHWA data requirements

Methodology

Methodology Overview Assess MIRE V 1.0 relevant to other FHWA databases/data standards Recommend revisions to MIRE V 1.0 Vet recommended revisions with practitioners & across FHWA Offices Develop MIRE V 2.0

Methodology Overview Assess MIRE V 1.0 relevant to other FHWA databases/data standards Recommend revisions to MIRE V 1.0 Vet recommended revisions with practitioners Develop MIRE V 2.0

Evaluated Datasets, Standards, Dictionaries HPMS - Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual TMG - Traffic Monitoring Guide FMIS - Fiscal Management System NBI - National Bridge Inventory LTPP - Long-Term Pavement Performance NPS RIP - National Park Service Road Inventory Program SHRP2 RID - Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Roadway Information Database HSM-Highway Safety Manual

Evaluation Datasets reviewed for: Name Definition Attributes Prescribed accuracy Use of data QA/QC procedures Collection method Collection/update frequency

Data Summary

Methodology Overview Assess MIRE V 1.0 relevant to other FHWA databases/data standards Recommend revisions to MIRE V 1.0 Vet recommended revisions with practitioners Develop MIRE V 2.0

Methodology: Develop Recommended Revisions Recommendations developed based on cross-walk matrix and feedback from FHWA Offices Recommendations developed for: General Findings/Structure Roadway Segment Roadway Alignment Roadway Junction

Methodology Overview Assess MIRE V 1.0 relevant to other FHWA databases/data standards Recommend revisions to MIRE V 1.0 Vet recommended revisions with practitioners Develop MIRE V 2.0

Methodology Overview: Vet Recommended Revisions Four Practitioner Vetting Sessions: 1 In-person: 2015 TRB’s 5th Conference on Transportation Systems Performance Measurement and Data, Colorado, June 3, 2015 3 Webinars: June – Aug 2015 More than 150 practitioners attended FHWA Panel – February 3, 2016 Reps from Safety, Planning, Asset Management, Operations, AASHTO, ITE, NACE, FMCSA

Recommended Revisions

Organization Recommendations are categorized into four categories: General findings/structure Roadway segment data Roadway alignment data Roadway junction data

Recommended Revisions: General Findings /Structure

General Findings Purpose/intended use of MIRE getting lost on States Many States still not receiving the message that MIRE is a recommendation/starting point to improving their roadway data for safety

General Findings (Continued) Recommended Revisions: Introduction – update and condense Overall Structure – revise to be more in-line with how States collect/store data Structure of each element – revise to be more user-friendly

Introduction Text out of date The Introduction will include: What MIRE is Why it was developed Intended use Criteria for inclusion/exclusion Importance of geo-spatial location MAP-21/FAST Act requirements All Roads Network of Linear Referenced Data (ARNOLD) Rulemaking Fundamental Data Elements Newly published HSIP and Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rules

Introduction (continued) The Introduction will include (continued): Discussion on Integration (with other data) Description of other types of data that can be integrated, e.g., roadside features Language on MMUCC and linkage between MMUCC and MIRE Language on linking crash, roadway, and traffic Callout boxes to focus text A list of resources MIRE Management Information Systems (MIRE MIS) Resources Case studies Discussion on changing/emerging areas - including bicyclists and pedestrians, new elements in the unpublished HSM Discussion on ADA Language on safety related pavement data

Introduction (continued) Condense text when possible Move detailed information to Appendix Add “How to Use MIRE” flow diagram

Current General Structure 202 elements divided into three categories: Roadway segments Roadway alignments Roadway junctions

I. Roadway Segment Descriptors I.a. Segment Location/Linkage Elements I.b. Segment Roadway Classification I.c. Segment Cross Section I.c.1. Surface Descriptors I.c.2. Lane Descriptors I.c.3. Shoulder Descriptors I.c.4. Median Descriptors I.d. Roadside Descriptors I.e. Other Segment Descriptors I.f. Segment Traffic Flow Data I.g. Segment Traffic Operations/Control Data I.h. Other Supplemental Segment Descriptors II. Roadway Alignment Descriptors II.a. Horizontal Curve Data II.b. Vertical Grade Data III. Roadway Junction Descriptors III.a. At-Grade Intersection/Junctions III.a.1. At-Grade Intersection/Junction General Descriptors III.a.2. At-Grade Intersection/Junction Descriptors (Each Approach) III.b. Interchange and Ramp Descriptors III.b.1. General Interchange Descriptors III.b.2. Interchange Ramp Descriptors

Recommended General Structure Condense/simplify categories and subcategories into 6 basic data types: Segment Intersection Intersection Leg Interchange/Ramp Horizontal Curve Vertical Grade

Current Element Structure Each element includes: Name Definition List of attributes (coding) Priority rating How it relates to elements in HPMS and safety tools (SafetyAnalyst, HSM) Illustration There are 202 elements in MIRE divided into three categories: roadway segments, roadway alignments, and roadway junctions. For each element there is a definition, a list of attributes, a priority rating, a reference indicating how it relates to elements in the Highway Performance Monitoring System, and new safety tools such as SafetyAnalyst and the Highway Safety Manual, and an illustration if needed. Based on feedback from the Webinars, so many of the elements are listed as “critical” it doesn’t have much meaning or use. Also, many States have different data needs, it could vary from State to State which elements are a priority for them.

Recommended Element Structure Add indicator for FDE Remove “Priority” Revise “Attribute” to “Recommended Attributes” Add crosswalk table

Crosswalk Table List the corresponding HPMS and other database elements (database, elements name, number) for each relevant database Include HSM data requirements Include a comparison of MIRE to each database in a separate table in the Appendix, each database will have its own Appendix

Example: 54. Median Type – Current Definition: The type of median present on the segment. Attributes: Undivided Flush paved median (at least 4 ft in width) Raised median Depressed median Two-way left turn lane Railroad or rapid transit Divided, separate grades without retaining wall Divided, separate grades with retaining wall Other divided Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: (Sample), HSM/IHSDM (Required), SafetyAnalyst (Required)

Example: 54. Median Type – Revised Format 54. Median Type FDE Definition: The type of median present on the segment. Recommended Attributes: Undivided Flush paved median (at least 4 ft in width) Raised median Depressed median Two-way left turn lane Railroad or rapid transit Divided, separate grades without retaining wall Divided, separate grades with retaining wall Other divided

Example: : 54. Median Type – Revised Format (Continued) Crosswalk Table: Note: “—” indicates that the dataset does not include this specific MIRE element. Dataset HPMS TMG SHRP 2 RID FMIS NBI LTPP NPS RIP HSM Element Name Median Type -- Presence/Type of Median Element Number 35

General Findings /Structure Additional questions/feedback?

Recommended Revisions: Roadway Segments

I. Roadway Segment Descriptors I.a. Segment Location/Linkage Elements I.b. Segment Roadway Classification I.c. Segment Cross Section I.c.1. Surface Descriptors I.c.2. Lane Descriptors I.c.3. Shoulder Descriptors I.c.4. Median Descriptors I.d. Roadside Descriptors I.e. Other Segment Descriptors I.f. Segment Traffic Flow Data I.g. Segment Traffic Operations/Control Data I.h. Other Supplemental Segment Descriptors

General Overview Majority of the revisions to segments elements 21. Federal Aid/ Route Type 27. Pavement Roughness/Condition 31. Number of Through Lanes 35. Auxiliary Lane Presence/Type 43. Right Shoulder Type & 47. Left Shoulder Type 56. Median Barrier Presence/Type 67. Roadside Rating 101. Toll Facility 106. Bridge Numbers for Bridges in Segment

Currently: 31. Number of Through Lanes Definition: The total number of through lanes on the segment. This excludes auxiliary lanes, such as collector-distributor lanes, weaving lanes, frontage road lanes, parking and turning lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes, toll collection lanes, shoulders, and truck climbing lanes. Attributes: Numeric Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: HPMS (Full Extent and Ramps), HSM/IHSDM (Required), SafetyAnalyst (Required)

Element: 31. Number of Through Lanes Recommendation: Retain Version 1.0 definition but add clarification to text: “It is the number of through lanes in the direction of inventory. If the road is inventoried in both directions together, this would be the number of through lanes in both directions. If the road is inventoried separately for each direction, this would be the number of through lanes in one single direction.” Add an illustration Add HOV, HOT, HOV/HOT, and transit lanes to the existing excluding list Add a note for other types of lanes

Currently: 35. Auxiliary Lane Presence/Type Definition: The presence and type of auxiliary lane present on the segment. Center two-way left turn lanes and HOV lanes are not included here. They are included under Element 54. Median Type and Elements 37. HOV Lane Types and 38. HOV Lanes respectively.. Attributes: Climbing lane Passing lane Exclusive continuous right-turn lane Other

Currently: 35. Auxiliary Lane Presence/Type Recommendation: add the following attributes: Part-time shoulder use Part-time lane use Special use lane

Currently: 56. Median Barrier Presence / Type Definition: The presence and type of median barrier on the segment. Attributes: None Unprotected Curbed Rigid barrier system (i.e., concrete) Semi-rigid barrier system (i.e., box beam, W-beam strong post, etc.) Flexible barrier system (i.e., cable, W-beam weak post, etc.) Rigidity unspecified Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: HPMS (Sample)

Element: 56. Median Barrier Presence / Type Recommendation: Revise attributes to match the HPMS: None. Unprotected. Curbed. Positive Barrier- unspecified. Positive Barrier flexible. Positive Barrier semi-rigid. Positive Barrier rigid.

Currently: 67. Roadside Rating Definition: A rating of the safety of the roadside, ranked on a seven-point categorical scale from 1 (best) to 7 (worst). Attributes: Rating = 1 Wide clear zones greater than or equal to 30 ft from the pavement edgeline. Sideslope flatter than 1:4. Recoverable. Rating = 2 Clear zone between 20 and 25 ft from pavement edgeline. Sideslope about 1:4. Recoverable Rating = 3…………… Priority: Critical Alternative HPMS/Tool Requirements: HSM/IHSDM (Required)

Element:67. Roadside Rating Keep this element HSM uses this element to predict safety effect of rural two-lane two-way roads States mentioned that this data element increases risk to DOTs.

Currently: 101. Toll Facility Definition: Presence and typed of toll facility on the segment. Attributes: No toll Toll paid in one direction only, non-high-occupancy toll (non-HOT) lanes Toll paid in both directions, non-HOT lanes Toll paid in one direction, HOT lanes Toll paid in both directions, HOT lanes Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: HPMS (Full Extent)

Revised: 101. Toll Facility Definition: Presence of toll facility on the segment. Attributes: No toll Toll paid in one direction only. Toll paid in both directions. Add a note referring to elements 37-42 (39-42 will be new elements)

Additional New Elements (39-42): Current 37. HOV Lane Presence/Type 38. HOV Lanes (Number) Add: HOT Presence/Type Number of HOT Lanes HOV/HOT Presence/Type Number of HOV/HOT Lanes

New Element: Tapered Edge Recommendation: Add a new element “Tapered Edge” Attributes: Yes No Add a graphic or photo Photo Source: FHWA EDC-1

Additional questions/feedback? Roadway Segments Additional questions/feedback?

Recommended Revisions: Roadway Alignment

General Overview Only SHRP 2 and NPS RID include information on alignments SHRP 2 RID uses similar names and attributes SHRP 2 RID and NPS do not include definitions SHRP 2 RID includes significantly different prescribed accuracy None of the data sources include collection/update frequency

II. Roadway Alignment Descriptors II.a. Horizontal Curve Data II.b. Vertical Grade Data 107. Curve Identifiers and Linkage Elements 108. Curve Feature Type 109. Horizontal Curve Degree or Radius 110. Horizontal Curve Length 111. Curve Superelevation 112. Horizontal Transition/Spiral Curve Presence 113. Horizontal Curve Intersection/Deflection Angle 114. Horizontal Curve Direction 115. Grade Identifiers and Linkage Elements 116. Vertical Alignment Feature Type 117. Percent of Gradient 118. Grade Length 119. Vertical Curve Length

Currently: 107. Curve Identifiers And Linkage Elements Definition: All elements needed to define location of each curve record and all elements necessary to link with other safety files. Attributes: Route and location descriptors (e.g., route and beginning and ending milepoints or route and beginning and ending spatial coordinates). Must be consistent with other MIRE files for linkage. Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: HSM/IHSDM (Required) Vetting session participants noted that the definition for this element was confusing

Element: 107. Curve Identifiers And Linkage Elements Recommendation: Modify the element name to “Curve Identifiers”. Change the definition to “All elements needed to define location of each curve record.”

Additional questions/feedback? Roadway Alignment Additional questions/feedback?

Recommended Revisions: Roadway Junctions

General Overview HPMS uses broader names, detailed definitions, different attributes SHRP 2 RID does not provide definitions, complete attribute lists for all data elements or collection/update frequency Prescribed accuracy is not provided in SHRP 2 RID or HPMS None of the datasets include QA/QC procedures

III. Roadway Junction Descriptors III.a. At-Grade Intersection/Junctions III.a.1. At-Grade Intersection/Junction General Descriptors III.a.2. At-Grade Intersection/Junction Descriptors (Each Approach) III.b. Interchange and Ramp Descriptors III.b.1. General Interchange Descriptors III.b.2. Interchange Ramp Descriptors

Currently:126. Intersection/Junction Geometry Definition: The type of geometric configuration that best describes the intersection/junction. Attributes: T-Intersection Y-Intersection Cross-Intersection (four legs) Five or more legs and not circular Roundabout Other circular intersection (e.g., rotaries, neighborhood traffic circles) Non-conventional intersection (e.g. superstreet, median U-turn, displaced left turn) Midblock pedestrian crossing See Figure 6 for additional detail. Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: HSM/IHSDM (Required), SafetyAnalyst (Required)

Element: 126. Intersection/Junction Geometry Recommendation: Break down current attribute “Non-conventional intersection (e.g. superstreet, median U-turn, displaced left turn)” to provide a complete list of non-conventional intersections. Add illustrations for new attributes.

Element: 126. Intersection/Junction Geometry Recommended additional attributes: Restricted crossing U-turn (i.e., RCUT, J-turn, Superstreet) intersection Median U-turn (i.e., MUT, Michigan Left, Thru-turn) intersection Displaced left-turn (i.e., DLT, continuous flow, CFI) intersection Jughandle (i.e., New Jersey jughandle) intersection Continuous green T intersection Quadrant (i.e., quadrant roadway) intersection Quadrant intersection comprises multiple intersections by its nature.

Currently:182. Interchange Type Definition: Type of interchange. Attributes: Diamond Full cloverleaf Partial cloverleaf Trumpet Three-leg directional Four-leg all-directional Semi-directional Single entrances and/or exits (partial interchange) Single point interchange (SPI) Other (e.g., double crossover diamond, displaced left turn, diverging diamond) See Figure 18 for additional detail. Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: SafetyAnalyst (Required) Similarly with Interchange Type

Element: 182. Interchange Type Recommendation: Break down current attribute “Other (e.g., double crossover diamond, displaced left turn, diverging diamond)”to provide a complete list of non-conventional interchanges. Add illustrations for new attributes. Similarly for Interchange Type

182. Interchange Type Recommended additional attributes: Diverging diamond (i.e., DDI, double-crossover diamond, DCD) interchange Double roundabout (i.e., double raindrop) interchange Single roundabout (i.e., single raindrop) interchange Quadrant

Currently: 155. Approach Left Turn Protection Definition: Presence and type of left turn protection on the approach. Attributes: Unsignalized Signalized with no left turn protection (i.e., permissive) Protected, all day Protected, peak hour only Protected permissive, all day Protected permissive, peak hour only Other Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: HSM/IHSDM (Required), SafetyAnalyst (Required)

Element: 155. Approach Left Turn Protection Recommendation: Add “Protected-permissive with flashing yellow arrow signal” to the existing attribute list This is based on the first vetting session

Currently: 156. Signal Progression Definition: Signal progression on approach. Attributes: No signal Uncoordinated fixed time Uncoordinated traffic actuated Progressive coordination (with several signals along either road) System coordination (e.g., real-time adaptive systemwide) Railroad crossing signal (includes signal-only and signal and gates) Other Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: None

Element 156. Signal Progression Recommendation: Combine attribute “Progressive coordination (with several signals along either road)” and “System coordination (e.g., real-time adaptive systemwide)” into one attribute “System coordination (time of day, traffic responsive and traffic adaptive)” Based on Joe’s comment

Currently: 159. Pedestrian Signal Special Features Attributes: None Accessible pedestrian signal (i.e., audible tones/messages for blind or low-vision pedestrians) Countdown pedestrian signal Both accessible and countdown features Other

159. Pedestrian Signal Special Features Attributes: None. Pedestrian Signal with countdown indicator (with APS) Pedestrian Signal with countdown indicator (w/o APS) Pedestrian Signal without countdown indicator (with APS) Pedestrian Signal without countdown indicator (w/o APS) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB or HAWK) Flash Beacon (include Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon) Add illustrations/photos for the new attributes

Currently: 132. Signalization Presence/Type Definition: Presence and type of signalization at intersection/junction. Attributes: No signal Uncoordinated fixed time Uncoordinated traffic actuated Progressive coordination (with several signals along either road) System coordination (e.g., real-time adaptive systemwide) Railroad crossing signal (includes signal-only and signal and gates) Other Priority: Value added HPMS/Tool Requirements: SafetyAnalyst (Required)

Element: 132. Signalization Presence/Type Recommendation: Combine attribute “Progressive coordination (with several signals along either road)” and “System coordination (e.g., real-time adaptive systemwide)” into one attribute “System coordination (time of day, traffic responsive and traffic adaptive)” Change attribute “Railroad crossing signal (includes signal-only and signal and gates) ” to “Railroad crossing signal (signal, gates, bells)” Based on Joe’s Comment

Additional questions/feedback? Roadway Junctions Additional questions/feedback?

Next Steps

Next Steps Finalize recommend revisions Incorporate all revisions and develop MIRE V 2.0. MIRE V 2.0 anticipated early 2017 Existing definition: “Maximum number of lanes on ramp.”

Additional Feedback/Questions Does anyone have any comments or questions?

Thank you FHWA Bob Pollack (Robert.Pollack@dot.gov) Carol Tan, PhD (Carol.Tan@dot.gov) VHB Nancy Lefler (nlefler@vhb.com) For additional information please contact Bob Pollack or Dr. Carol Tan, who led this effort for FHWA.