1. FHWA MIRE Reassessment
Robert Pollack and Dr. Carol Tan, FHWA
Kim Eccles, VHB
October 27, 2015

2. Overview MIRE Background Purpose of Project Methodology
MIRE Recommendations
Overall Structure
Roadway Segment
Roadway Alignment
Roadway Junction
Next Step

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. Why MIRE?
Using roadway/traffic data merged with crash data enables users to:
Develop relationships of safety to roadway features and user exposure.
Better identify location and characteristics of crashes.
Better determine appropriate countermeasures and strategies.
Evaluate the effectiveness of safety treatments.

7. Benefits of MIRE: Beyond Safety
Benefit for:
Decision Makers
Asset Management
Infrastructure
Operations
Maintenance
Link with other data they might otherwise not have access to
Better data, improved decision making.

8. Federal Data Requirements
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century Act (MAP-21)
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 for State 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.
FDEs – all public roads
Smaller FDE set – lower mileage roads
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.

9. 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.

10. Project Purpose

11. Purpose Conduct assessment of MIRE V 1.0 Develop MIRE V 2.0
Meet the needs of the safety community & improve compatibility w/ FHWA data requirements

12. Methodology

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. Data Summary
NOT looking to add to MIRE, just refine what’s in there – based on assessment
Vetting session might produce suggestions to add elements

17. 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

18. 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
The following slides will present the draft recommendations for discussion

19. 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

20. Methodology Overview: Vet Recommended Revisions
Four vetting sessions:
1st Session: During 2015 TRB’s 5th International Conference on Transportation Systems Performance Measurement and Data, Denver, Colorado, June 3, 2015
2nd Session: Online, June 23, 2015
3rd Session: Online, July 23, 2015
4th Session: Online, August 26, 2015
More than 150 practitioners attended

21. Recommended Revisions

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

23. Recommended Revisions: General Findings /Structure

24. General Findings Introduction text out of date Additional text needed:
MAP-21
Fundamental Data Elements (FDE)
All Roads Network of Linear Referenced Data (ARNOLD)
A discussion on changing/emerging areas - including bicyclists and pedestrians
A discussion on ADA
Improved crosswalk table between MIRE and Safety Analyst
We will NOT add any data elements based on the Supplemental Databases. The responses from the vetting sessions on which should be added were inconsistent. Also, one thing that was consistent was the participants responded there were too many data elements in the current version of MIRE.

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

26. 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

27. General Structure Each element includes: Definition
List of attributes (coding)
Priority rating
How it relates to elements in HPMS and safety tools (SafetyAnalyst, HSM)
Illustration
DELETE
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.

28. Data Element Example
129. Intersecting Angle Definition: The measurement in degrees of the smallest angle between any two legs of the intersection. This value will always be within a range of 0 to 90 degrees. Attributes: Degrees Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: HSM/IHSDM (Required)
Here is an example of one of the data elements in MIRE – Element 129, Intersection Angle. MIRE provides a definition of the element, the attributes, which is this example is Degrees, and the priority rating.
The priority rating for each element is a rating of either “critical” or “value added.” Elements ranked as “critical” are those elements that are necessary for States to conduct basic safety management or are contained in safety analysis tools. Elements ranked as “value added” are those elements that would be beneficial but are not crucial to use current versions of safety analysis tools.
There are also elements in the list that capture similar information to each other. These elements are further categorized as “preferred” or “alternative.” The preferred element captures the intended data, however, if that element is not available, States can collect the alternative in its place.
For this example element the priority rating was critical, primarily since it is a required element for the Highway Safety Manual and Interactive Highway Safety Design Model. For this element, an illustration is provided to help give further detail into how to measure the angle.
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.

29. Recommended Revisions: Roadway Segments

30. 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

31. General Overview Majority of the revisions to segments elements
21. Federal Aid/ Route Type
27. Pavement Roughness/Condition
31. Number of Through Lanes
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

32. Currently: 21. Federal Aid/Route Type
Definition: Federal-aid/National Highway System (NHS) route type.
Attributes:
Route is non Federal-aid
Route is Federal-aid, but not on NHS (i.e., all non-NHS routes functionally classified as Interstate, Other Freeways & Expressways, Other Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, and Urban Minor Collectors)
Route is on NHS
NHS connector to Major Airport
NHS connector to Major Port Facility
NHS connector to Major Amtrak Station
NHS connector to Major Rail/Truck Terminal
NHS connector to Major Inter City Bus Terminal
NHS connector to Major Public Transportation or Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal
NHS connector to Major Pipeline Terminal
NHS connector to Major Ferry Terminal
Priority: Critical
HPMS/Tool Requirements: HPMS (Full Extent and Ramps)

33. Element: 21. Federal Aid/Route Type
Recommendation: Split into two data elements:
Federal Aid: Indicate if inventory route is Federal aid
NHS: Used to indicate route’s function
Data element “Federal Aid” will have the following attributes:
Route is non Federal-aid.
Route is Federal-aid, but not on NHS (i.e., all non-NHS routes functionally classified as Interstate, Other Freeways & Expressways, Other Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, and Urban Minor Collectors).
Route is on NHS.
Data element “NHS” will have a list of attributes matched to the HPMS as follows:
Non Connector NHS.
Major Airport.
Major Port Facility.
Major Amtrak Station.
Major Rail/Truck Terminal.
Major Inter City Bus Terminal.
Major Public Transportation or Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal.
Major Pipeline Terminal.
Major Ferry Terminal.

34. Element: 21. Federal Aid Attributes: Route is non Federal-aid.
Route is Federal-aid, but not on NHS (i.e., all non-NHS routes functionally classified as Interstate, Other Freeways & Expressways, Other Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, and Urban Minor Collectors).
Route is on NHS.

35. Element: 22. Route Type Attributes matched to the HPMS as follows:
Non Connector NHS.
Major Airport.
Major Port Facility.
Major Amtrak Station.
Major Rail/Truck Terminal.
Major Inter City Bus Terminal.
Major Public Transportation or Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal.
Major Pipeline Terminal.
Major Ferry Terminal.

36. Currently: 27. Pavement Roughness/ Condition
Definition: The numeric value used to indicate pavement roughness.
Attributes:
International Roughness Index (IRI), reported as an integer to the nearest inch per mile.
Priority: Value Added Preferred
HPMS/Tool Requirements: HPMS (Full Extent and Ramps*, Sample*)

37. Element: 27. Pavement Roughness / Condition
Recommendation: Change the name to “International Roughness Index” to match to the HPMS and the LTPP as well as to make it more straight forward to users .

38. 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)

39. 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 to existing excluding list
Add a note for other types of lanes
Discuss the definition.
Current definition: 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. HOV will be added to this list.
We will not add definitions for each type of lanes.
Add a note for other types of lanes, such as “HOV is captured in 37 and 38”; or add a general note saying that these types of lanes are captured in separate elements in the MIRE.

40. Currently: 43. Right Shoulder Type
Definition: The predominant shoulder type on the right side of road in the direction of inventory.
Attributes:
None
Surfaced shoulder exists - bituminous concrete (AC)
Surfaced shoulder exists - Portland Cement Concrete surface (PCC)
Stabilized shoulder exists (stabilized gravel or other granular material with or without admixture)
Combination shoulder exists (shoulder width has two or more surface types; e.g., part of the shoulder width is surfaced and part of the width is earth)
Earth shoulder exists
Priority: Critical
HPMS/Tool Requirements: HPMS (Sample), HSM/IHSDM (Required), SafetyAnalyst (Optional)

41. Currently: 47. Left Shoulder Type
Definition: Shoulder type on left side of roadway in direction of inventory. For undivided roads and divided roads with one direction of inventory, this will be the outside shoulder on the opposing side. Note that information on paved width of the inner (left) shoulder is included under median descriptors (see Element 49. Left Paved Shoulder Width).
Attributes:
None
Surfaced shoulder exists - bituminous concrete (AC)
Surfaced shoulder exists - Portland Cement Concrete surface (PCC)
Stabilized shoulder exists (stabilized gravel or other granular material with or without admixture)
Combination shoulder exists (shoulder width has two or more surface types; e.g., part of the shoulder width is surfaced and part of the width is earth)
Earth shoulder exists
Priority: Critical
HPMS/Tool Requirements: HSM/IHSDM (Required), SafetyAnalyst (Optional)

42. Element: 43. Right Shoulder Type & 47. Left Shoulder Type
Recommendation: Add “curb” to the existing attribute list

43. 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)

44. 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.

45. 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)

46. Element:67. Roadside Rating
Remove this element from MIRE
States mentioned that this data element increases risk to DOTs.

47. 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)

48. Element: 101. Toll Facility
Recommendation: Add “Other Special Tolls” to the existing attribute list
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.

49. Currently: 106. Bridge Numbers for Bridges in Segment
Definition: Bridge numbers from bridge file for bridges in segment (See discussion in Introduction).
Attributes:
Bridge number for each bridge in the segment.
Priority: Critical (unless addresses in Bridge File provide linkage to other inventory files – See discussion in Introduction)
HPMS/Tool Requirements: None

50. Element: 106. Bridge Numbers for Bridges in Segment
Recommendation: Modify Version 1.0 definition to reflect NBI definition (“official structure number”)

51. New Element: Safety Edge
Recommendation:
Add a new element “Safety Edge”
Attributes:
Yes No
Add a graphic or photo

52. Recommended Revisions: Roadway Alignment

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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.”

57. Recommended Revisions: Roadway Junctions

58. 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

59. 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

60. 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)

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. 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

64. 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

65. 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

66. 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)

67. 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

68. Currently: 190. Ramp Number of Lanes
Definition: Maximum number of lanes on ramp. Attributes: Numeric Priority: Critical HPMS/Tool Requirements: SafetyAnalyst (Optional)

69. Element: 190. Ramp Number of Lanes
Recommendation: Add the following text to the definition from HPMS: “Include the predominant number of (through) lanes on the ramp. Do not include turn lanes (exclusive or combined) at the termini unless they are continuous (turn) lanes over the entire length of the ramp.”
Existing definition: “Maximum number of lanes on ramp.”

70. Currently:131. Intersection/Junction Traffic Control
Definition: Traffic control present at intersection/junction.
Attributes:
Uncontrolled
Two-way stop
All-way stop
Yield sign
Signalized (with ped signal)
Signalized (w/o ped signal)
Railroad crossing, gates and flashing lights
Railroad crossing, flashing lights only
Railroad crossing, stop-sign controlled
Railroad crossing, crossbucks only
Other
Priority: Critical
HPMS/Tool Requirements: HSM/IHSDM (Required), SafetyAnalyst (Required)
The following set of revisions all address feedback received to improve MIRE to accommodate non-motorists related data (ped, bike, etc) based on feedback from the Vetting Sessions

71. Element: 131. Intersection/Junction Traffic Control
Recommendation:
Condense attributes “Signalized (with ped signal)” and “Signalized (w/o ped signal)” into one attribute “Signalized.”
Add one separate element for pedestrian traffic control “Pedestrian Signal Presence/Type”

72. New Element: Pedestrian Signal Presence/Type
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)
Add illustrations/photos for the new element

73. 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 adapative systemwide)
Railroad crossing signal (includes signal-only and signal and gates)
Other
Priority: Value added
HPMS/Tool Requirements: SafetyAnalyst (Required)

74. Element: 132. Signalization Presence/Type
Recommendation:
Modify the existing attribute “Uncoordinated traffic actuated” to “Uncoordinated motorist actuated”
Add one attribute “Uncoordinated non-motorist actuated”

75. Currently: 157 Crosswalk Presence/Type
Definition: Presence and type of crosswalk crossing this approach leg.
Attributes:
Unmarked crosswalk
Marked crosswalk
Marked crosswalk with supplemental devices (e.g., in-street yield signs, in-pavement warning lights, pedestrian bulb outs, etc.)
Marked crosswalk with refuge island
Marked with refuge island and supplemental devices (e.g., in-street yield signs, in-pavement warning lights, pedestrian bulb outs, etc.)
Pedestrian crossing prohibited at this approach
Other
Priority: Critical
HPMS/Tool Requirements: None

76. Element: 157. Crosswalk Presence/Type
Recommendation:
Add on attribute “Raised Crosswalk”
Add illustrations

77. Next Steps

78. Next Steps Vet final recommendations with FHWA Technical Working Group
Incorporate all revisions and develop MIRE V 2.0.
Existing definition: “Maximum number of lanes on ramp.”

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

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