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

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

3. Background

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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:
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, 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.

7. 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.

8. Project Purpose

9. 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

10. Methodology

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. Data Summary

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Recommended Revisions

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

22. Recommended Revisions: General Findings /Structure

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

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

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

29. 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

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

31. 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.

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

33. 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

34. 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)

35. 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

36. 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

37. General Findings /Structure
Additional questions/feedback?

38. Recommended Revisions: Roadway Segments

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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)

42. 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

43. 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

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

45. 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)

46. 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.

47. 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)

49. 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.

50. 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)

51. 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 (39-42 will be new elements)

52. 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

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

54. Additional questions/feedback?
Roadway Segments
Additional questions/feedback?

55. Recommended Revisions: Roadway Alignment

56. 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

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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.”

60. Additional questions/feedback?
Roadway Alignment
Additional questions/feedback?

61. Recommended Revisions: Roadway Junctions

62. 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

63. 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

64. 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)

66. 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.

67. 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.

68. 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

70. 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

71. 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

72. 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)

73. 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

74. 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

75. 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

76. 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

77. 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

78. 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)

79. 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

80. Additional questions/feedback?
Roadway Junctions
Additional questions/feedback?

81. Next Steps

82. 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.”

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

84. Thank you
FHWA Bob Pollack Carol Tan, PhD VHB Nancy Lefler
For additional information please contact Bob Pollack or Dr. Carol Tan, who led this effort for FHWA.