U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Note: This document was superseded on May 2016 by: MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost Benefit Estimation
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
The project team would like to thank the following individuals who graciously provided information needed to determine key inputs in this report.
William Johnson, Colorado DOT
Phyllis Snider, Colorado DOT
John Miller, Missouri DOT
Brian Reagan, Missouri DOT
Ashley Reinkmeyer, Missouri DOT
Myrna Tucker, Missouri DOT
Jay Whaley, Missouri DOT
David Blackstone, Ohio DOT
David Gardner, Ohio DOT
Derek Troyer, Ohio DOT
Kenneth Hess, Oklahoma DOT
Matthew Warren, Oklahoma DOT
Scott Jones, Utah DOT
Lou Baker, Washington DOT
Dan Davis, Washington DOT
Yusuf Mohamedshah, FHWA Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center
Tracy Troutner, FHWA, Iowa Division
Will Stein, FHWA, Minnesota Division
Marc Thornsberry, FHWA, Missouri Division
Joseph Hausman, FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information R
Robert Rozycki, FHWA, Office of Highway Policy Information
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
SI (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
Table 1. MIRE FDE for All Public Roads with AADT ≥400 Vehicles per Day
Table 2. MIRE FDE for Roads with AADT <400 Vehicles per Day
Table 3. Accumulation of Benefits
Table 4. Net Present Value of MIRE FDE Data Collection and Maintenance Costs for the 2013-2029 Analysis Period (2013 Dollars)
Table 5. Summary of US Average Cost and Needed Benefit for the 2013-2029 Analysis Period (2013 Dollars)
Table A1. Cost Inputs and Source
Table A2. Cost of Completing a Linear Referencing System by State
Table A3. Cost of Roadway Segment Data Collection by State
Table A4. Cost of Intersection Data Collection by State
Table A5. Cost of Ramp Data Collection by State
Table A6. Cost of Volume Data Collection by State
Table A7. Annual Data Maintenance Cost by State
Table A8. Net Present Value of Total Data Collection and Maintenance Costs by State, 2013-2029 (2013 Dollars)
| AADT | Annual Average Daily Traffic |
|---|---|
| FARS | Fatality Analysis Reporting System |
| FDE | Fundamental Data Elements |
| FHWA | Federal Highway Administration |
| GES | General Estimate System |
| GIS | Geographic Information System |
| IHSDM | Interactive Highway Safety Design Model |
| HPMS | Highway Performance Monitoring System |
| HSIP | Highway Safety Improvement Program |
| HSM | Highway Safety Manual |
| LiDAR | Light Detection and Ranging |
| LRS | Linear Referencing System |
| MAIS | Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale |
| MAP-21 | Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century |
| MIRE | Model Inventory of Roadway Elements |
| MIRE | FDE Model Inventory of Roadway Elements Fundamental Data Elements |
| MIS | Management Information System |
| NHDOT | New Hampshire Department of Transportation |
| NHS | National Highway System |
| OMB | Office of Management and Budget |
| SHSP | Strategic Highway Safety Plan |
| UDOT | Utah Department of Transportation |
| WSDOT | Washington State Department of Transportation |
Recognizing that quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, and safety of roadways, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed guidance for States on implementing their Highway Safety Improvement Programs (HSIPs). By incorporating roadway and traffic data into safety analysis procedures, States can better identify safety problems and prescribe solutions to support and implement their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). Furthermore, new safety analysis tools and methods being developed such as the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and related software such as AASHTOWare's Safety Analyst and FHWA's Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM), need quality roadway, traffic, and crash data to achieve the most accurate results. Using roadway and traffic data together with crash data can help agencies make decisions that are fiscally responsible and improve the safety of the roadways for all users.
In the past few years, FHWA has issued several reports and guidelines to address how State and local agencies should be collecting, maintaining, and using safety data to support their HSIPs and SHSPs. These efforts include the FHWA Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Version 1.0 (1), the Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program report (2), and the Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program (3).
MIRE Version 1.0 provides a recommended listing of 202 roadway inventory and traffic elements critical to safety management (1). While all of the MIRE elements are important, it may not be feasible for States to collect and integrate all of the elements into their HSIP at the same time. In 2011, FHWA identified a subset of these elements that are critical for safety analysis. These elements, known at the time as the Fundamental Data Elements (FDE), are identified and described in the Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program (4). This set is subsequently referred to as the 2011 FDE.
In 2011, FHWA published the Market Analysis of Collecting Fundamental Roadway Data Elements to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program (2). The report explored the costs of collecting the 2011 FDE. The analysis developed cost estimates for collecting these data in small, medium, and large States. Cost effectiveness analysis was used to determine the number of fatalities and injuries that would need to be reduced as a result of the data collection to justify the costs of the data collection. The report represented the best available information on the cost of collecting these data elements at the time it was developed.
In July of 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was passed. This transportation funding legislation required the identification of a subset of MIRE elements. The MAP-21 Guidance on State Safety Data Systems (5) provides information on the set of roadway and traffic data elements States should be collecting on all public roads because they are fundamental to support a State's HSIP. This set of elements is herein referred to as the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (MIRE FDE). The MIRE FDE include segment, intersection, and ramp data elements and were determined to be the basic set of data elements that an agency would need to conduct enhanced safety analyses to support a State's HSIP. This guidance supersedes the Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program (3) and the 2011 FDE. The MIRE FDE are based on the elements needed to apply the HSM roadway safety management (Part B) procedures using network screening and analytical tools, are a subset of MIRE, and are equivalent to some Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) full extent elements that States submit for Federal-aid highways. The MIRE FDE are divided into a full set of MIRE FDEs and a reduced set of MIRE FDEs for roads with an annual average daily traffic (AADT) less than 400 vehicles per day. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the MIRE FDE.
Table 1. MIRE FDE for All Public Roads with AADT ≥ 400 Vehicles per Day.
| FDE (MIRE Number)∧ | Definition |
|---|---|
| Roadway Segment | |
| Segment Identifier (12) | Unique segment identifier. |
| Route Number (8)° | Signed numeric value for the roadway segment. |
| Route/Street Name (9)° | The route or street name, where different from route number. |
| Federal-aid/ Route Type (21)* | Federal-aid/National Highway System (NHS) route type. |
| Rural/Urban Designation (20)* | The rural or urban designation based on Census urban boundary and population. |
| Surface Type (23) | The surface type of the segment. |
| Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) | The location of the starting point of the roadway segment. |
| End Point Segment Descriptor (11) | The location of the ending point of the roadway segment. |
| Segment Length (13) | The length of the segment. |
| Direction of Inventory (18) | Direction of inventory if divided roads are inventoried in each direction. |
| Functional Class (19)* | The functional class of the segment. |
| Median Type (54) | The type of median present on the segment. |
| Access Control (22)† | The degree of access control. |
| One/Two-Way Operations (91)* | Indication of whether the segment operates as a one- or two-way roadway. |
| Number of Through Lanes (31)* | The total number of through lanes on the segment. This excludes turn lanes and auxiliary lanes. |
| Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) (79)* | The average number of vehicles passing through a segment from both directions of the mainline route for all days of a specified year. |
| AADT Year (80) | Year of AADT. |
| Type of Government Ownership (4)* | Type of governmental ownership. |
| Intersection | |
| Unique Junction Identifier (120) | A unique junction identifier. |
| Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122) | Location of the center of the junction on the first intersecting route (e.g. route-milepost). |
| Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123) | Location of the center of the junction on the second intersecting route (e.g. route-milepost). Not applicable if intersecting route is not an inventoried road (i.e., a railroad or bicycle path). |
| Intersection/Junction Geometry (126) | The type of geometric configuration that best describes the intersection/junction. |
| Intersection/Junction Traffic Control(131) | Traffic control present at intersection/junction. |
| AADT (79) [for Each Intersecting Road] | The AADT on the approach leg of the intersection/junction. |
| AADT Year (80) [for Each Intersecting Road] | The year of the AADT on the approach leg of the intersection/junction. |
| Unique Approach Identifier (139) | A unique identifier for each approach of an intersection. |
| Interchange/Ramp | |
| Unique Interchange Identifier (178) | A unique identifier for each interchange. |
| Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal (197) | Location on the roadway at the beginning ramp terminal (e.g.,route-milepost for that roadway) if the ramp connects with a roadway at that point. |
| Location Identifier for Roadway attending Ramp Terminal (201) | Location on the roadway at the ending ramp terminal (e.g. route-milepost for that roadway) if the ramp connects with a roadway at that point. |
| Ramp Length (187) | Length of ramp. |
| Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal (195) | A ramp is described by a beginning and ending ramp terminal in the direction of ramp traffic flow or the direction of inventory. This element describes the type of roadway intersecting with the ramp at the beginning terminal. |
| Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal (199) | A ramp is described by a beginning and ending ramp terminal in the direction of inventory. This element describes the type of roadway intersecting with the ramp at the ending terminal. |
| Interchange Type (182) | Type of interchange. |
| Ramp AADT (191)* | AADT on ramp. |
| Year of Ramp AADT (192) | Year of AADT on ramp. |
| Functional Class (19)* | The functional class of the segment. |
| Type of Government Ownership (4)* | Type of governmental ownership. |
∧ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements – MIRE Version 1.0 (1).
*HPMS full extent elements required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., NHS and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
*deg; HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, Principal Arterials, and Minor Arterials.
† HPMS element required on all NHS, Interstate, Freeway & Expressways, and Principal Arterials
Table 2. MIRE FDE for All Public Roads with AADT <400 Vehicles per Day.
| FDE (MIRE Number)∧ | Definition |
|---|---|
| Roadway Segment | |
| Segment Identifier (12) | Unique segment identifier. |
| Functional Class (19)* | The functional class of the segment. |
| Surface Type (23) | The surface type of the segment. |
| Type of Government Ownership (4)* | Type of governmental ownership. |
| Number of Through Lanes (31)* | The total number of through lanes on the segment. This excludes turn lanes and auxiliary lanes. |
| Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) (79)* | The average number of vehicles passing through a segment from both directions of the mainline route for all days of specified year. |
| Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) | The location of the starting point of the roadway segment. |
| End Point Segment Descriptor (11) | The location of the ending point of the roadway segment. |
| Rural/Urban Designation (20)* | The rural or urban designation based on Census urban boundary and population. |
| Intersection | |
| Unique Junction Identifier (120) | A unique junction identifier. |
| Location Identifier for Road 1Crossing Point (122) | Location of the center of the junction on the first intersecting route (e.g. route-milepost). |
| Location Identifier for Road 2Crossing Point (123) | Location of the center of the junction on the second intersecting route (e.g. route-milepost). Not applicable if intersecting route is not an inventoried road (i.e., a railroad or bicycle path). |
| Intersection/Junction Geometry (126) | The type of geometric configuration that best describes the intersection/junction. |
| Intersection/Junction Traffic Control(131) | Traffic control present at intersection/junction. |
∧ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements – MIRE Version 1.0 (1).
*HPMS full extent elements required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., NHS and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
In addition to collecting the MIRE FDE, States would need to develop a common statewide relational linear referencing system (LRS) on all public roads that is linkable with crash data, as required by 23 CFR 1.5 and described in recent FHWA guidance (6) issued on August 7, 2012. This LRS will enable States to locate high crash locations on all public roads in the State. As States expand their inventories, additional data, such as roadway and traffic data, should belinkable by LRS geolocation.
The objective of this effort is to estimate the potential cost to States in developing a statewide LRS and collecting the MIRE FDE on all public roadways. The expected benefit is that collecting additional roadway and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis process will improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. This report, building upon the market analysis report for the 2011 FDE (2), provides information on efforts conducted since 2011, updates values needed to determine the costs and benefits of collecting the MIRE FDE (slightly revised from the 2011 FDE), revises the methodology used previously to incorporate more recent data and systems, expands the estimates nationally, and adjusts the results accordingly to reflect these changes.
The market analysis report for the 2011 FDE (2)relied solely on vendor information to determine data collection costs. Since that time, a number of studies were conducted on evaluating data collection methods in an effort to obtain quality data that are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, and safety of roadways. These efforts included the MIRE Management Information System (MIRE MIS) Lead Agency Program intersection inventory collection in New Hampshire and Washington State, a task of the MIRE MIS project (7); and the deployment of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology in Utah (8).
The objective of the MIRE MIS project was to test the feasibility of converting the MIRE listing into an MIS. This was done through the exploration, development, and documentation of mechanisms for data collection, processes for data handling and storage, details of data file structure, methods to assure the integration of MIRE data with crash data and other data types, and performance metrics to assess and assure MIRE data quality and MIS performance.
The exploration of the mechanism for collecting MIRE data was done through three major tasks including a pilot data collection effort where MIRE data were collected in two States (the MIRE MIS Lead Agency Program intersection inventory collection in New Hampshire and Washington State); a white paper that explores the use of collective information for transportation safety data; and development of a MIRE data collection guidebook. The Lead Agency Program in New Hampshire and Washington State are particularly relevant to this task.
The objective of the Lead Agency Program was to assist volunteer transportation agencies to collect, store, and maintain MIRE data, and to incorporate those data into their safety programs. FHWA chose the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) through an application process as Lead Agencies to participate in the MIRE MIS effort. A second objective was to determine the level of effort and resources necessary to achieve these goals.
Both NHDOT and WSDOT requested an intersection inventory for use in AASHTOWare's SafetyAnalyst, but with slightly different variables. Having both agencies select similar elements provided the project team an opportunity to compare different data collection methodologies. The project team developed two different methods to collect these data elements, one set of simplified tools based on a geographic information system (GIS) platform (for NHDOT), and a more complex automated extraction tool based on proprietary software (for WSDOT). The data collection for both States was done in office using information from available sources such as aerials, Google Street View, and video logs to populate the data elements.
The rate of data collection for New Hampshire was approximately nine minutes per intersection compared to three minutes per intersection for Washington State. The New Hampshire rate of collection was higher due to the time it took to collect speed limits on each approach to the intersection. The rate of collection without speed limits is estimated to be approximately two minutes per intersection.
Department of Transportation (UDOT) is employing the LiDAR technology on a groundbreaking data collection project. UDOT has recently entered into a contract to gather, identify, and process a wide variety of roadway assets along its entire 6,000+ center lane miles of State route and interstates (9).One of the key goals of the project is to "deploy state of the art collection methods to improve and develop rigorous safety, maintenance, and preservation programs."
The first phase of the project, which involved the data gathering, is complete. The second phase is underway, consisting of post processing and data delivery. The initial data gathering was conducted in 2012, and there are plans for an update of the data to be conducted in 2014.
The data collected include roadway distress data, pavement surfaces, lane miles, signs, right-of- way images, vertical clearances, and more with each of these categories being subdivided further to provide additional detail. The data collection costs associated with collecting roadway conditions was approximately $26 per mile, $30 per mile with geolocating roadways, and $95 per mile with roadway asset data collection (8).
Many agencies use other non-LiDAR data collection vendors to collect data including traffic volumes. The market analysis report for the 2011 FDE (2)summarized cost data provided by 12 data collection vendors from around the country. Costs were obtained from the vendors on a per-mile basis along segments, and a per-location basis for intersections and ramps. The cost for developing an LRS was estimated per mile. For traffic counts on segments, an estimate of one count per mile was used to generate a per mile cost. These costs included data collection and reduction for integration into a State's existing system.
The majority of vendors estimated that they would use digital data collection vans to collect the roadway inventory data. For traffic count data, vendors provided cost estimates based on our classification counts for segment and ramp traffic data and peak hour manual counts for intersections.
The market analysis report for the 2011 FDE included an extensive literature review that uncovered no established methodologies to estimate the benefit of collecting roadway data elements for safety (2). Additionally, no one State was identified that already collects the exact list of MIRE FDE on all public roadways within the State. Therefore, a cost effectiveness analysis was conducted based on estimated costs of collecting data for a small, medium, and large State.
As with the previous analysis, a cost effectiveness analysis approach is used for this effort. However, the general approach is modified to estimate the cost for each State based on the best available estimates for the number of lane miles, intersections, and ramps. The analysis uses costs for data collection from the several sources including the MIRE MIS intersection inventory, Utah's LiDAR experience, and vendors' estimates. These sources represent potential methodologies for data collection, and were selected for this analysis based on the availability of recent cost information. There may be other collection methods, tools, or technologies that States could consider for data collection.
The analysis also considers the extent of data collection already being conducted by the States, and develops a national cost estimate. The cost estimations used in this analysis reflect the additional costs that States would incur based on what is not already being collected through HPMS and through other efforts. During 2011-2012, FHWA conducted a State Data Capabilities Assessment for each State on the collection, management, and use of roadway safety data (10). States provided information about their practices on State and local roads, with most responses for local roads limited to Federal-aid local roads. The analysis uses the results of this assessment to determine the cost to collect the additional MIRE FDEs for each State and the District of Columbia.
The cost estimate also includes the cost to extend existing LRS to all public roads, consistent with the HPMS requirements that States submit their LRS covering all public roadways for their HPMS submittal of 2013 data due June 15, 2014 (6). In addition, 13 of the 37 MIRE FDE for roadways with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day are also already collected for the HPMS. For roadways with AADT > 400 vehicles per day, five of the 14 MIRE FDE are HPMS full extent elements for Federal-aid roads. Table 1 and Table 2 indicate which of the 37 MIRE FDE are HPMS elements.
Each State's roadways, intersections, and ramps are divided into roadway ownership classifications in order to apply the associated costs. To calculate the data collection costs for each State, the roadway mileage, number of intersections, and number of ramps is determined for:
The analysis uses 2011 mileage data from the FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information Highway Statistics Series to determine the Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid roadways for each State, and the urban and rural mileage (11). At the time of this report, the 2011 data did not provide a break-down between State and non-State roadways, so the analysis uses the 2008 data to determine the proportion between State and non-State roads (12). This proportion is applied to the 2011 data.
The MIRE FDE differ for roadways with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day and those with AADT < 400 vehicles per day. The Highway Statistics Series data do not include this distribution for each State. The analysis uses data provided by Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota to determine the percent of non-Federal-aid roadways with AADT > 400 vehicles per day. The average of these States, 89.6 percent, is applied for the remaining States.
Several States were contacted to determine the number of intersections, including the number of State intersections (i.e., at least one of the crossing roadways is a State road) and the number of non-State intersections (i.e., both crossing roadways are local roads). Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio provided the total number of intersections in their States. A partial count of intersections was provided by Colorado, Washington, and Oklahoma.
The intersection data from Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio were used to determine the average intersections per mile and the portion of non-State intersection. Based on these data, the analysis uses an average of 2.3 intersections per mile to estimate the number of intersections for the remaining States. The data from these three States also show that approximately 78 percent of the intersections are non-State intersections.
To determine the number of non-State intersections with AADT > 400 vehicles per day, the analysis applies the same percentage used for the roadway segments, 89.6 percent.
As with the intersection data, several States were contacted to determine the number of ramps in each State. Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington provided the total number of ramps in their States. These data were compared to the rural and urban interstate miles in these States, resulting in an average of five ramps per rural interstate mile and 9.3 ramps per urban interstate mile. The number of ramps for the remaining States is determined by extrapolating from these averages.
The costs for each State to collect the additional MIRE FDE are aggregated into seven categories:
Each of the seven categories is described in the following sections. Additionally, Table A1 in the Appendix provides a detailed listing of the specific cost inputs and the source of the inputs for each of the categories.
An LRS is required for all public roadways as part of the States' HPMS submittal of 2013 data, which is due June 15, 2014. Currently, the completeness of the roadway network for each State varies. Only the costs of adding roadways not currently in the network is considered in this analysis. The analysis assumes that all Federal-aid roadways have already been incorporated into the system, and consequently no additional cost will be incurred. For the non-Federal-aid roadways, the percentage of missing roads is based on the State Data Capabilities Assessment (10). The cost per mile to include these additional roads is assumed to be $30/mile based on the Utah LiDAR program (8). Table A2 in the Appendix provides the breakdown of the cost to complete an LRS for each State.
The MIRE FDE includes 18 roadway segment elements for roadways with AADT≥ 400 vehicles per day, two of which involve collecting volumes (AADT and AADT year). There are nine MIRE FDE roadway segment elements for those with AADT > < 400 vehicles per day, one of which is AADT.
As part of their HPMS reporting for Federal-aid roadways, States already collect many of the MIRE FDE for roadways with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day. The additional non-HPMS elements include surface type, direction of inventory, median type, begin point segment descriptor, end point segment descriptor, segment length,and AADT year. Several elements are only reported to HPMS for some functional classes. For example, access control is collected on NHS roadways, interstates, freeways and expressways, and principal arterials.
Field data collection is needed for surface type and median type. Based on the Utah LiDAR project it will cost approximately $30/mile to collect these elements (8). Additionally, a base mobilization fee of $255,000 will be incurred to mobilize the LiDAR equipment in each State. Access control can be collected in the office utilizing aerial images or as-built plans. The costs associated with this effort are estimated to be $3 per mile (10 miles per hour at $30 per hour). This also includes the cost to collect the remaining business elements. The analysis considers business elements to be basic location and administrative elements (e.g., segment identifier, direction of inventory).
The analysis assumes the roadways with AADT < 400 vehicles per day are non-Federal-aid roads. These costs are discussed in the following section.
Some States collect at least a subset of the MIRE FDE on non-Federal-aid roadways, based on the State Data Capabilities Assessment (10). To account only for the additional costs to collect the MIRE FDE, only those elements not currently collected by the States are considered. This was done separately for each State based on their self-reported extent of collection from the State Data Capabilities Assessment. Where a partial number of elements were collected, the cost associated with the missing elements is derived by reducing the overall cost proportionally (missing elements/total elements).
The costs for the remaining roadway segment elements on non-Federal-aid roadways are calculated separately for roadways with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day and roadways with AADT < 400 vehicles per day.
The following MIRE FDE roadway segment elements are deemed to require field data collection: surface type, median type, one/two way operations, and number of through lanes. Based on the Utah LiDAR project it will cost approximately $38/mile to collect these elements (8). States will not incur the base mobilization fee for the LiDAR van if they already incurred that fee for the data collection on Federal-aid roads.
The remaining non-volume MIRE FDE roadway segment elements can be collected in the office utilizing aerial images or as-built plans. The cost associated with this effort is estimated to be $3 per mile (10 miles per hour at $30 per hour) for State roadways and $6 per mile (five miles per hour at $30 per hour) for local roadways. The higher cost for local roadways is because there are more business elements to collect, and typically there is less existing information for local roads than for State roads.
Roadways with AADT < 400 Vehicles per Day The MIRE FDE roadway segment elements for roadways with AADT < 400 vehicles per day are significantly less – eight non-volume elements compared to 16. The analysis assumes the number of through lanes for all roads in this category is two, based on the low volumes. The analysis also assumes that States will obtain information for these roads through coordination with local agencies. The estimated cost associated with this effort is $0.30/mile (100 miles per hour at $30 per hour), which is lower than the cost for roads with AADT ≥ 400 because there are fewer elements.
Table A3 in the Appendix provides the cost breakdown for roadway data collection on Federal- aid and non-Federal-aid roads for each State.
The MIRE FDE includes eight intersection elements for roadways with AADT≥ 400 vehicles per day, two of which involve volumes (AADT and AADT year). There are five MIRE FDE for intersections of two roadways with AADT > 400 vehicles per day.
The MIRE FDE for intersections can be divided into:
States will most efficiently achieve the collection of business elements by running a model which imports the intersections' attributes from existing roadway information. The presence of an LRS is a pre-requisite for running the model. While many States already have this system in place, it is assumed that all States will have it by 2014 for their HPMS submittal. Based on the MIRE MIS intersection inventory conducted for New Hampshire, the estimated cost to run this model is a flat fee of $12,000 (120 hours at $100/hour) (7). Since this is not a per element cost, the flat cost is applied to States that are missing any of the intersection business elements on State or non-State roads.
Based on the findings of the MIRE MIS intersection inventory effort, the cost to collect the intersection features is $1 per intersection (2 minutes per intersection at $30 per hour). Similar to the roadway segments, some States already collect MIRE FDE for intersections. In States where data are already available for some elements, the cost associated with the missing elements is derived by reducing the overall cost proportionally (missing elements/total elements).
The analysis assumes 90 percent of the local/local intersections with AADT > 400 vehicles per day will have intersections features collected in office at the rates described above. For the remaining 10 percent of these intersections the analysis assumes States will obtain the data through coordination with local agencies. This cost is estimated to be $0.03 per local intersection (1,000 intersections per hour at $30/hour). Table A4 in the Appendix provides the cost breakdown for intersection data collection for each State
The MIRE FDE includes 11 ramp elements, including two volume-related elements and two elements already collected under HPMS. Similar to intersections, States will most efficiently collect these elements by running a model to import the ramps' business elements from existing roadway data. The business elements for ramps are unique interchange identifier, location identifier for roadway at beginning ramp terminal, year of ramp AADT, and location identifier for roadway at ending ramp terminal. The estimated cost to run the model is $8,000 (80 hours at $100/hour) and can only be run once an LRS is in place.
The remaining four elements including ramp length, roadway type at beginning and ending ramp termini, and interchange type, can be collected in the office through aerials and as-built plans. The cost to collect this information is estimated to be $4 per ramp (eight minutes per ramp at $30 per hour). Since this is not a per element cost, the flat cost is applied to States that are missing any of the ramp business elements on State or non-State roads. Table A5 in the Appendix provides the cost breakdown for ramp data collection for each State.
The MIRE FDE includes volumes (AADT), as well as their year, for segments. For roadways with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day only, the MIRE FDE includes volume data for ramps and for all intersecting roadways at intersections. Volumes are already collected under HPMS for Federal-aid roadway segments and ramps. Table A6 in the Appendix provides the cost breakdown for volume data collection on roadway segments and intersections for each State.
As previously mentioned, HPMS requires AADT reporting on all Federal-aid roadways. Thus, no additional volume collection costs are associated with these roads.
Several States were contacted to determine State practices for volume data collection for non- Federal-aid roads. Colorado, Missouri, and Ohio reported that they collect volume data on all State roads, including non-Federal-aid locations. Based on their responses, the analysis assumes volume data are collected on 99 percent of non-Federal-aid State roadways. This leaves one percent of non-Federal-aid State roadways to collect volume on to account for States that may not have fully complete volume data
States indicated they have volumes for approximately five percent of all non-Federal-aid, non- State roads with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day. For those with AADT < 400 vehicles per day, only one percent had volumes. The analysis assumes that traffic volumes will be estimated for 90 percent of the non-State roads with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day, and collected on five percent
States also indicated they have volumes for approximately one percent of all non-Federal-aid, non-State roads with AADT < 400 vehicles per day. For these low volume roads, the analysis assumes volumes will be estimated for 98 percent, leaving one percent to be counted.
The cost to collect the volume data is based on the vendors' responses in the previous Market Analysis report (2)at $460 per count. The analysis assumes one count per mile for urban roads, and one count per five miles for rural roads given that these roads tend to have similar volumes for longer stretches due to fewer cross roads. This results in a $460 per mile cost for urban roads and $92 per mile for rural roads.
The analysis assumes States will use existing volume and roadway data to estimate volumes on the roads where counts are not conducted. This can be done using geospatial analysis that assigns volumes based on roadway and location characteristics. Similar to the model run for segment and intersection business elements, the analysis assumes a flat cost of $16,000 (160 hours at $100/hour) for estimation of volumes. This cost is applied twice – once to estimate volumes on the non-Federal-aid, non-State roads with AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day, and once for the non-Federal-aid, non-State roads with AADT < 400 vehicles per day. States will likely need to create two models for each of the roadway classes, which is why the estimation cost is applied twice.
The MIRE FDE includes volumes for intersections of roadways with volumes over AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day for both intersecting roadways. This analysis assumes that separate intersection volumes will not be counted. Instead, volumes will be assigned to the intersection based on the AADT of the intersecting roads. Based on the MIRE MIS intersection inventory effort, the cost to assign the volumes to an intersection is approximately $0.50 per intersection (100 hours per 10,000 intersections at $50 per hour) (7).
HPMS reporting includes volume data for ramps; therefore no additional cost is incurred to collect these data for ramps.
The efforts to collect the roadway segment, intersection, and ramp data will require costs for management and administration, particularly if the data are collected by vendors or contractors.
The analysis includes management and administration costs equal to five percent of the total data collection costs, up to $250,000 maximum for each State.
In addition to the costs of initial data collection, the costs to maintain the data are also calculated (e.g., the costs to update the data as conditions change). For roadway segment data, the analysis assumes that two percent of the roadway mileage will be updated annually. The analysis approximates that updating the segment data will cost $6 per mile (five miles per hour at $30/hour). The cost of updating the segment data is more than the initial cost of collecting segment data since these updates will most likely not be done by re-collecting the data on a large-scale, but rather by updating individual segments based on updates from construction/design plans, aerials, and other technological advances. More time will be needed to update segments individually (e.g., higher unit price for collection) than the large scale initial collection effort.
For intersections, the analysis assumes two percent of intersections with an AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day will be updated annually. Similar to segments, these will be based on updates from construction/design plans and aerials. The analysis estimates that updating the intersection data will cost $2.50 per intersection (five minutes per intersection at $30/hour). Similar to segments, this assumes that more time will be needed for each intersection that is updated.
The analysis assumes two percent of ramps will be updated annually. The cost for updating ramps is $5 per ramp (10 minutes per ramp at $30/hour). As with segments and intersections, the analysis assumes more time is need per ramp for the data updates.
For updating volumes, the analysis assumes volumes on non-Federal-aid State roads will be updated on a three-year cycle (i.e., 33 percent of volumes updated annually). The volumes on non-Federal-aid non-State roads with an AADT ≥ 400 vehicles per day will be updated on a six- year cycle. This is only for those roads that have existing counts (five percent of total) and roads with new counts from the data collection (five percent of total). This equates to approximately two percent of the non-Federal-aid non-State roads annually. The same rate of collection and cost per count used for the data collection is applied for the updates, for both urban and rural roads.
These assumptions on data collection cycles and maintenance were based on standard practices obtained through discussions with several States. Table A7 in the Appendix summarizes the maintenance costs for each State.
The annual base cost for segments, intersections, and ramps is disaggregated for each State. The analysis assumes a start date of October 1, 2013 for the development of the LRS and the data collection. The analysis also assumes that all States will have an LRS by June 15, 2014, and that this is the end date for development of the LRS. The analysis assumes the MIRE FDE data collection will be complete by September 30, 2019, for a total time period of six years. The costs are disaggregated annually at an equal rate for the duration of the data collection period.
The analysis employs a real discount rate of 0.50 percent based on a rate for 16 years, extrapolated from the December 2012 real interest rates on treasury notes and bonds for 7, 10, 20, and 30 years from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (13). A real discount rate is a forecast of real interest rates from which the inflation premium has been removed. This rate is appropriate for calculating the net present value for cost-effectiveness analysis.
The data collection and maintenance costs are disaggregated over the entire analysis period, 2013 to 2029. This timeframe allows for the total six year data collection period and an additional 10 years of implementation. The discount rate of 0.50 percent, per OMB guidance, is used to calculate the present value of the collection and maintenance costs for each year in 2013 dollars (13). The present value cost for each year is summed to determine the net present value cost for the total analysis period, including maintenance of the data. Table A8 in the Appendix summarizes the net present value costs for each State.
The benefits of collecting the MIRE FDE can have a significant impact on improving safety on our Nation's roads, 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 benefits in this analysis are calculated by estimating the reduction in fatalities and injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a 2:1 ratio of benefits to costs. That is, the assumed benefit of collecting the MIRE FDE is ultimately a reduction in fatalities and injuries. The 2012 comprehensive cost of a fatality is $9,100,000 and $107,438 for an injury, based on the value of a statistical life (14). The injury cost reflects the average injury costs based on the national distribution of injuries in the General Estimate System (GES) using a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS). MAIS injuries are on a scale of zero to five, with five being the most severe non-fatal injury.
The future cost of a fatality and injury is forecasted out for each year of the analysis period, and then discounted to reflect 2013 dollar values using a discount rate of 0.50 percent. The calculation of benefits assumes a yearly accumulation of benefits beginning after the data collection start date of October 1, 2013. The analysis assumes a portion of benefits will be accumulated while data are collected, with the full realization of benefits after data collection is complete. Table 3 shows the rate of accumulation of the benefits.
Table 3. Accumulation of Benefits
| Year End | Value of Data in Decision-Making | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 9/30/2014 | 0% | No value in first full year of collection; data are not readily available for analysis. |
| 9/30/2015 | 20% | LRS is available for use and increases ability for analysis. |
| 9/30/2016 | 40% | LRS and high priority data are available for analysis. |
| 9/30/2017 | 60% | LRS and high priority data are available for analysis. |
| 9/30/2018 | 70% | LRS, high priority data, and some lower priority data are available for analysis. |
| 9/30/2019 | 80% | Data collection is complete but not all data are available for analysis. |
| 9/30/2020 | 90% | All data are available for analysis; data are incorporated into safety program and used in decision-making process for improvements to roadways. |
| 9/30/2021 | 100% | Full value of data realized after one full year of incorporation into safety program. |
| 9/30/2022 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
| 9/30/2023 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
| 9/30/2024 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
| 9/30/2025 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
| 9/30/2026 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
| 9/30/2027 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
| 9/30/2028 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
| 9/30/2029 | 100% | Value of investment continues. |
The average cost of a fatality and injury is calculated for the analysis period. This calculation accounts for the portion of the fatality and injury costs during the data collection period
The analysis uses a five-year average of fatalities in each State as report in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from 2007 to 2011 (15). The ratio of the number of fatalities to injuries for each State is calculated using the national five-year average of fatalities to injuries. During this five-year period, there were an average of 35,476 total fatalities per year and 2,302,000 total injuries per year, equating to a fatality to injury ratio of approximately 1:65. Using that ratio, the number of fatalities and injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a 2:1 ratio of benefits to costs is developed for each State.
The costs for each State to collect the additional MIRE FDE are compiled into seven categories:
Table 4 lists the net present value (in 2013 dollars) of the total costs to complete the data collection and maintain the data for the entire 16-year analysis period.
Table 4. Net Present Value of MIRE FDE Data Collection and Maintenance Costs for the 2013-2029 Analysis Period (2013 Dollars).
| Data | US Average per State | US Total |
|---|---|---|
| LRS | $336,900 | $17,180,600 |
| Segments | $732,000 | $37,332,500 |
| Intersections | $159,800 | $8,151,700 |
| Ramps | $16,100 | $819,400 |
| Volumes | $118,000 | $6,016,100 |
| Management & Administration | $66,600 | $3,394,500 |
| Maintenance | $2,896,100 | $147,701,100 |
| Total | $4,325,400 | $220,595,900 |
The total cost of data collection is less than the costs reported in the 2011 Market Analysis (2). This analysis incorporates new data and information that became available since the publication of the previous analysis. The State Data Capabilities Assessment provided more insight on current State practices and the extent and coverage of data already collected. Where the previous analysis made global assumptions on the extent of data coverage nationally, this analysis used the State's self-reported extent and coverage from the Capabilities Assessment. Also, the analysis incorporates updated costs from recently deployed data collection methods (e.g., Utah's LiDAR experience and the intersection inventory collection in New Hampshire), which were not available at the time of the previous market analysis.
Another factor contributing to the change in costs is the difference in the analysis approach. The 2011 market analysis calculated costs for a hypothetical small, medium, and large State using data from a few sample States. With the recent availability of information on individual States, this analysis calculates the costs for each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia individually, which are used to determine a national average.
The summary of the average annual costs and required benefits to collect the above information are shown in Table 5. On average, nationally, 0.38 fatalities and 24.77 injuries would need to be reduced over the entire analysis period to achieve a greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio. This increases to 0.76 fatalities and 49.54 injuries that would need to be reduced to achieve a greater than 2:1 benefit to cost ratio.
Table 5. Summary of US Average Cost and Needed Benefit for the 2013-2029 Analysis Period (2013 Dollars).
| Benefit Scenario | Net Present Value Cost | Cost of a Fatality | Cost of an Injury | Needed Fatalities | Needed Injuries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benefit ≥ 1:1 | $4,325,400 | $6,416,233 | $75,753 | 0.38 | 24.77 |
| Benefit ≥ 2:1 | $4,325,400 | $6,416,233 | $75,753 | 0.76 | 49.54 |
The purpose of this effort was to conduct an economic analysis of the development of a statewide common LRS and the collection of the MIRE FDE on all public roads. Collecting additional roadway and traffic data, and integrating those data into the safety analysis process, will improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety.
The approach used to conduct the economic analysis is a hybrid of a benefit-cost analysis and a cost effectiveness analysis. The costs for data collection were provided from several sources including the MIRE MIS Lead Agency Program intersection inventory effort, Utah's LiDAR experience, and vendors' estimates. For benefits, an estimate of how many fatalities and injuries would need to be reduced in order exceed the costs (for a 1:1 and 2:1 ratio) are developed. That is, this analysis identified the benefit required to obtain cost effectiveness.
The analysis calculates the costs for each State to collect the MIRE FDE that they do not already collect for HPMS, or for other reasons, as reported in the State Data Capabilities Assessment (10). The costs are broken down for the development of an LRS, collection of segment, intersection, ramp, and volume data, and annual maintenance of data.
The analysis period is from 2013 to 2029. This includes a 10-year period after data collection is complete to fully realize the benefits. The calculation of benefits assumes a yearly accumulation of benefits beginning after the data collection start date of October 1, 2013. The analysis assumes a portion of benefits will be accumulated while data are collected, with the full realization of benefits after data collection is complete.
The estimated reduction in fatalities and injuries were determined based on the costs. The national average for the total cost of data collection and maintenance over the entire analysis period is $4.33 million per State and the District of Columbia (in 2013 U.S. dollars). A reduction of 0.38 fatalities and 24.77 injuries over the analysis period is required to achieve a greater than 1:1 benefit to cost ratio.
Table A1. Cost Inputs and Source.
| OWNERSHIP | VARIABLE | RATE | UNIT | COMMENT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRS | ||||
| All | Cost to collect | $30.00 | per mile | Cost is based on Utah LiDAR project and reinforced by previous market analysis. |
| SEGMENTS | ||||
| All | Field collection, LiDAR mobilization | $255,000.00 | base cost | Based on Utah LiDAR base mobilization cost. |
| Federal-aid, State | Field collection, LiDAR cost for elements | $30.00 | per mile | Based on Utah LiDAR costs. Surface type ($26/mi), median type ($4/mi). |
| Federal-aid, State | In office, rate of collection | 10 | miles per hour | Access control can be collected from aerials, plus any additional business elements (minimal). |
| Federal-aid, State | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| Federal-aid, Non-State | Field collection, LiDAR cost for elements | $30.00 | per mile | Based on Utah LiDAR costs. Surface type ($26/mi), median type ($4/mi). |
| Federal-aid, Non-State | In office, rate of collection | 10 | miles per hour | Access control can be collected from aerials, plus any additional business elements (minimal). |
| Federal-aid, Non-State | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | Field collection, LiDAR cost for elements | $38.00 | per mile | Based on Utah LiDAR costs. Surface type ($26/mi), median type ($4/mi), one/two-way operations ($1/mi), number of lanes ($7/mi) |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | In office, rate of collection | 10 | miles per hour | Access control can be collected from aerials, plus any additional business elements (minimal). |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | Field collection, LiDAR cost for elements | $38.00 | per mile | Based on Utah LiDAR costs. Surface type ($26/mi), median type ($4/mi), one/two-way operations ($1/mi), number of lanes ($7/mi) |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | In office, rate of collection | 5 | miles per hour | Lower rate of collection due to more business elements to collect and less existing information. |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | Portion of roadways under 400 ADT | 89.6% | percent | Extrapolation based on data obtained from States. See StateData_Road tab. |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | In office, rate of collection | 100 | miles per hour | Obtain information through coordination with local agencies. Rate based on average miles in a NH town. Assume number of through lanes is 2. |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| RAMPS | ||||
| All | Number of ramps, rural | 5 | ramps per mile | Extrapolation based on data obtained from States. See StateData_Ramp tab. |
| All | Number of ramps, urban | 9.3 | ramps per mile | Extrapolation based on data obtained from States. See StateData_Ramp tab. |
| All | Identification of ramps and business elements, rate | 80 | hours | This is a model that is run; setup time is the same regardless of the size of the State. Requires LRS to be in place; this portion occurs after 2014 for most States. |
| All | Identification of ramps and business elements, cost | $100.00 | per hour | |
| All | In office, rate of collection | 0.13 | hours per ramp | Rate equivalent to 8 minutes per ramp. |
| All | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| INTERSECTIONS | ||||
| All | Number of intersections, all roads | 2.3 | intersections per mile | Extrapolation based on data obtained from States. See StateData_Int tab. |
| Non-State | Portion of intersections that are Local/Local | 78% | percent | Extrapolation based on data obtained from States. See StateData_Int tab. |
| All | Identification of intersections and business elements, rate | 120 | hours | This is a model that is run; setup time is the same regardless of the size of the State. Requires LRS to be in place; this portion occurs after 2014 for most States. |
| All | Identification of intersections and business elements, cost | $100.00 | per hour | |
| State (S/S and S/L) | In office, rate of collection | 0.03 | hours per intersection | Rate equivalent to 2 minutes per intersection. Geometry and traffic control can be collected from aerials. |
| State (S/S and S/L) | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | Base on NH intersection inventory costs. |
| Non-State (L/L), over 400 ADT | In office, rate of collection | 0.03 | hours per intersection | Rate equivalent to 2 minutes per intersection. Geometry and traffic control can be collected from aerials. |
| Non-State (L/L), over 400 ADT | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | Base on NH intersection inventory costs. |
| Non-State (L/L), under 400 ADT | Intersections populated by in-office data collection | 90% | percent | Assume portion of intersections will have intersection features collected in office using aerials. |
| Non-State (L/L), under 400 ADT | In office, rate of collection | 0.03 | hours per intersection | Rate equivalent to 2 minutes per intersection. Geometry and traffic control can be collected from aerials. |
| Non-State (L/L), under 400 ADT | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | Base on NH intersection inventory costs. |
| Non-State (L/L), under 400 ADT | Intersections populated by local agency coordination | 10% | percent | Assume portion of intersections will have intersection features collected through coordination with local agencies. |
| Non-State (L/L), under 400 ADT | In office, rate of collection | 1000 | intersections per hour | Obtain information through coordination with local agencies. Assume number of through lanes is 2. |
| Non-State (L/L), under 400 ADT | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| VOLUME | ||||
| Non-Federal-aid, State | Percent of roads with volume | 99% | percent | Based on three States reporting having 100% of roads with volumes. Assume some States would fall just under 100%. |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | Percent of roads to collect volume | 1% | percent | |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, urban, rate of collection | 1 | count per mile | |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, urban, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, rural, rate of collection | 0.2 | count per mile | Rate is equivalent to 1 count every 5 miles. |
| Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, rural, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | Percent of roads with volume | 5% | percent | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | Percent of roads to estimate volume | 90% | percent | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | Estimation of volumes, rate | 160 | hours | Assume estimations are based on exiting roadway information (e.g., functional class, area type)and existing volumes. |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | Estimation of volumes, cost | $100.00 | per hour | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | Percent of roads to collect volume | 5% | percent | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | ADT on segment, urban, rate of collection | 1 | count per mile | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | ADT on segment, urban, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | ADT on segment, rural, rate of collection | 0.2 | count per mile | Rate is equivalent to 1 count every 5 miles. |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400 ADT | ADT on segment, rural, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | Percent of roads with volume | 1% | percent | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | Percent of roads to estimate volume | 99% | percent | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | Estimation of volumes, rate | 160 | hours | Assume estimations are based on exiting roadway information (e.g., functional class, area type)and existing volumes. |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | Estimation of volumes, cost | $100.00 | per hour | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | Percent of roads to collect volume | 0% | percent | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | ADT on segment, urban, rate of collection | 1 | count per mile | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | ADT on segment, urban, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | ADT on segment, rural, rate of collection | 0.2 | count per mile | Rate is equivalent to 1 count every 5 miles. |
| Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under 400 ADT | ADT on segment, rural, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Intersections over 400 ADT | Assignment of volumes, rate | 0.01 | hours per intersection | Rate is equivalent to 100 hours per 10,000 intersections. This is based on the NH intersection inventory effort. |
| Intersections over 400 ADT | Assignment of volumes, cost | $50.00 | per hour | |
| INVENTORY MAINTENANCE COSTS | ||||
| Segments, >400 ADT | Roadways updated annually | 2% | percent | Update annually. Based on inputs FHWA and knowledge of State practices. |
| Segments, >400 ADT | In office, rate of collection | 5 | miles per hour | |
| Segments, >400 ADT | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| Intersections, >400 ADT | Intersections updated annually. | 2% | percent | Update annually. Based on inputs FHWA and knowledge of State practices. |
| Intersections, >400 ADT | In office, rate of collection | 0.08 | hours per intersection | Rate equivalent to 5 minutes per intersection. Assume more individual attention needed for each intersection. |
| Intersections, >400 ADT | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| Ramps | Ramps updated annually | 2% | percent | Update annually. Based on inputs FHWA and knowledge of State practices. |
| Ramps | In office, rate of collection | 0.17 | hours per ramp | Rate equivalent to 10 minutes per ramp. Assume more individual attention needed for each ramp. |
| Ramps | In office, cost | $30.00 | per hour | |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, State | Volumes updated annually, urban | 33% | percent | Update on a three-year cycle. |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, urban, rate of collection | 1 | count per mile | |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, urban, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, State | Volumes updated annually, rural | 33% | percent | Update on a three-year cycle. |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, rural, rate of collection | 0.2 | count per mile | Rate is equivalent to 1 count every 5 miles. |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, State | ADT on segment, rural, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400ADT | Volumes updated annually | 1.7% | percent | Update only the roads with volumes on a six-year cycle. |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400ADT | ADT on segment, urban, rate of collection | 1 | count per mile | |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400ADT | ADT on segment, urban, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400ADT | ADT on segment, rural, rate of collection | 0.2 | count per mile | Rate is equivalent to 1 count every 5 miles. |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, over 400ADT | ADT on segment, rural, cost | $460.00 | per count | |
| Volume, Non-Federal-aid, Non-State, under400 ADT | Volumes updated annually | 0% | percent | |
| MISCELLANEOUS INPUTS | ||||
| All | Discount Rate | 0.50% | percent | Source: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c |
| All | Inflation Rate | 0.00% | percent | |
| All | Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) | $9,100,000.00 | per fatality | Source: 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. |
| All | Data collection M&A, percent of costs | 5% | percent | Management and administration costs for data collection. |
| All | Data collection M&A, maximum | $250,000.00 | maximum | |
Table A2. Cost of Completing a Linear Referencing System by State.
| State | State1 | Local2 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $0 | $227,484 | $227,484 |
| Alaska | $5,034 | $272,357 | $277,391 |
| Arizona | $0 | $533,523 | $533,523 |
| Arkansas | $0 | $1,909,326 | $1,909,326 |
| California | $0 | $3,494,533 | $3,494,533 |
| Colorado | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Connecticut | $0 | $434,371 | $434,371 |
| Delaware | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Dist. of Columbia | $0 | $0 | 0 |
| Florida | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Georgia | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Hawaii | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Idaho | $0 | $948,626 | $948,626 |
| Illinois | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Indiana | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Iowa | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Kansas | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Kentucky | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Louisiana | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Maine | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Maryland | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Massachusetts | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Michigan | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Minnesota | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Mississippi | $0 | $1,118,447 | $1,118,447 |
| Missouri | $0 | $0 | $ |
| Montana | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Nebraska | $0 | $1,641,906 | $1,641,906 |
| Nevada | $0 | $87,161 | $87,161 |
| New Hampshire | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| New Jersey | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| New Mexico | $0 | $892,000 | $892,000 |
| New York | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| North Carolina | $355,431 | $737,637 | $1,093,067 |
| North Dakota | $0 | $2,051,927 | $2,051,927 |
| Ohio | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Oklahoma | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Oregon | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Pennsylvania | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Rhode Island | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| South Carolina | $0 | $727,026 | $727,026 |
| South Dakota | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Tennessee | $0 | $349,427 | $349,427 |
| Texas | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Utah | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Vermont | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Virginia | $12,083 | $0 | $12,083 |
| Washington | $0 | $1,340,014 | $1,340,014 |
| West Virginia | $0 | $100,961 | $100,961 |
| Wisconsin | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Wyoming | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| US Total | $372,548 | $16,866,728 | $17,239,277 |
| US Average | $7,305 | $330,720 | $338,025 |
Notes:
Table A3. Cost of Roadway Segment Data Collection by State.
| State | Federal-aid | Non-Federal-aid | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Non-State | State | Non-State | |||
| <400 | >400 | |||||
| Alabama | $0 | $28,194 | $0 | $20,383 | $601,989 | $650,565 |
| Alaska | $0 | $266,837 | $0 | $2,711 | $46,160 | $315,708 |
| Arizona | $0 | $364,945 | $0 | $13,658 | $232,515 | $611,118 |
| Arkansas | $13,594 | $7,416 | $263 | $20,863 | $610,166 | $652,302 |
| California | $0 | $1,762,282 | $475 | $31,311 | $533,033 | $2,327,100 |
| Colorado | $0 | $382,801 | $0 | $19,029 | $323,950 | $725,780 |
| Connecticut | $0 | $304,646 | $0 | $4,097 | $69,743 | $378,486 |
| Delaware | $0 | $0 | $0 | $255 | $259,346 | $259,601 |
| Dist. of Columbia | $0 | $255,944 | $0 | $24 | $405 | $256,373 |
| Florida | $0 | $755,780 | $0 | $25,665 | $436,910 | $1,218,355 |
| Georgia | $0 | $752,145 | $0 | $24,837 | $422,822 | $1,199,804 |
| Hawaii | $0 | $0 | $0 | $762 | $267,980 | $268,743 |
| Idaho | $0 | $417,138 | $2 | $7,500 | $168,297 | $592,937 |
| Illinois | $0 | $0 | $0 | $27,787 | $728,046 | $755,833 |
| Indiana | $0 | $0 | $8 | $19,822 | $592,438 | $612,267 |
| Iowa | $0 | $0 | $0 | $24,595 | $562,721 | $587,317 |
| Kansas | $0 | $731,107 | $0 | $28,374 | $483,029 | $1,242,509 |
| Kentucky | $0 | $0 | $0 | $13,609 | $486,671 | $500,280 |
| Louisiana | $0 | $8,290 | $0 | $11,455 | $450,016 | $469,761 |
| Maine | $0 | $0 | $549 | $3,860 | $320,714 | $325,123 |
| Maryland | $0 | $0 | $0 | $6,387 | $363,728 | $370,114 |
| Massachusetts | $0 | $0 | $0 | $6,753 | $369,959 | $376,712 |
| Michigan | $588,589 | $1,019,289 | $535 | $23,018 | $391,854 | $2,023,284 |
| Minnesota | $13,441 | $1,065,562 | $21 | $25,359 | $932,464 | $2,036,847 |
| Mississippi | $0 | $0 | $0 | $14,316 | $498,715 | $513,031 |
| Missouri | $0 | $367,206 | $0 | $26,877 | $135,340 | $529,423 |
| Montana | $0 | $324,141 | $0 | $15,986 | $272,148 | $612,275 |
| Nebraska | $9,968 | $0 | $5 | $19,615 | $588,927 | $618,516 |
| Nevada | $334,260 | $27,709 | $6,217 | $7,810 | $132,950 | $508,945 |
| New Hampshire | $0 | $0 | $0 | $3,071 | $307,282 | $310,354 |
| New Jersey | $0 | $551,185 | $132 | $7,766 | $132,208 | $691,291 |
| New Mexico | $39,383 | $342,130 | $4,836 | $14,531 | $247,381 | $648,262 |
| New York | $14,387 | $10,646 | $142 | $23,265 | $651,059 | $699,498 |
| North Carolina | $36,267 | $301,625 | $622,004 | $6,609 | $112,514 | $1,079,020 |
| North Dakota | $376,938 | $428,886 | $857 | $18,385 | $312,987 | $1,138,053 |
| Ohio | $0 | $418,701 | $0 | $25,012 | $425,792 | $869,505 |
| Oklahoma | $33,474 | $998,584 | $0 | $21,810 | $371,284 | $1,425,151 |
| Oregon | $0 | $0 | $0 | $11,006 | $442,366 | $453,373 |
| Pennsylvania | $0 | $399,463 | $0 | $20,520 | $349,331 | $769,314 |
| Rhode Island | $278,153 | $16,721 | $843 | $1,256 | $21,388 | $318,361 |
| South Carolina | $0 | $272,330 | $0 | $6,514 | $110,896 | $389,740 |
| South Dakota | $0 | $470,304 | $1 | $16,837 | $286,636 | $773,779 |
| Tennessee | $0 | $398,378 | $0 | $20,872 | $355,329 | $774,579 |
| Texas | $0 | $906,465 | $0 | $57,649 | $981,412 | $1,945,527 |
| Utah | $0 | $370,747 | $0 | $9,835 | $167,427 | $548,008 |
| Vermont | $294,287 | $47,879 | $96 | $2,800 | $47,662 | $392,725 |
| Virginia | $0 | $375,454 | $0 | $3,323 | $56,572 | $435,349 |
| Washington | $0 | $698,609 | $0 | $17,152 | $291,995 | $1,007,756 |
| West Virginia | $406,297 | $13,572 | $238,425 | $1,005 | $17,111 | $676,410 |
| Wisconsin | $0 | $0 | $0 | $23,312 | $651,858 | $675,170 |
| Wyoming | $0 | $284,209 | $0 | $5,359 | $91,231 | $380,799 |
| US Total | $2,439,038 | $16,147,318 | $875,410 | $764,609 | $17,714,759 | $37,941,135 |
| US Average | $47,824 | $316,614 | $17,165 | $14,992 | $347,348 | $743,944 |
Table A4. Cost of Intersection Data Collection by State.
| State | Identify Intersections and Business Elements1 |
Data Collection | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Non-State < 400 | Non-State > 400 | |||
| Alabama | $12,000 | $51,444 | $147,571 | $18,969 | $229,984 |
| Alaska | $12,000 | $8,437 | $24,203 | $3,111 | $47,752 |
| Arizona | $12,000 | $32,936 | $94,481 | $12,145 | $151,562 |
| Arkansas | $12,000 | $50,641 | $145,269 | $18,673 | $226,584 |
| California | $12,000 | $0 | $249,951 | $32,129 | $294,080 |
| Colorado | $12,000 | $0 | $128,334 | $16,496 | $156,830 |
| Connecticut | $12,000 | $10,851 | $31,128 | $4,001 | $57,980 |
| Delaware | $12,000 | $0 | $4,614 | $593 | $17,207 |
| Dist. of Columbia | $12,000 | $759 | $2,178 | $280 | $15,217 |
| Florida | $12,000 | $61,610 | $176,733 | $22,717 | $273,061 |
| Georgia | $12,000 | $0 | $179,327 | $23,051 | $214,378 |
| Hawaii | $12,000 | $2,229 | $6,394 | $822 | $21,445 |
| Idaho | $12,000 | $24,568 | $70,474 | $9,059 | $116,101 |
| Illinois | $12,000 | $35,293 | $151,862 | $19,520 | $218,675 |
| Indiana | $12,000 | $49,115 | $140,892 | $18,110 | $220,117 |
| Iowa | $12,000 | $58,175 | $166,880 | $21,451 | $258,505 |
| Kansas | $12,000 | $0 | $152,966 | $19,662 | $184,628 |
| Kentucky | $12,000 | $40,085 | $114,988 | $14,781 | $181,854 |
| Louisiana | $12,000 | $15,594 | $89,463 | $11,500 | $128,556 |
| Maine | $12,000 | $11,574 | $33,201 | $4,268 | $61,043 |
| Maryland | $12,000 | $16,354 | $46,914 | $6,030 | $81,299 |
| Massachusetts | $12,000 | $18,369 | $52,694 | $6,773 | $89,836 |
| Michigan | $12,000 | $61,775 | $177,208 | $22,778 | $273,761 |
| Minnesota | $12,000 | $0 | $201,321 | $25,878 | $239,199 |
| Mississippi | $12,000 | $38,010 | $109,035 | $14,015 | $173,060 |
| Missouri | $12,000 | $30,000 | $127,431 | $16,380 | $185,811 |
| Montana | $12,000 | $18,945 | $81,517 | $10,478 | $122,939 |
| Nebraska | $12,000 | $47,362 | $135,861 | $17,463 | $212,686 |
| Nevada | $12,000 | $18,641 | $53,473 | $6,873 | $90,987 |
| New Hampshire | $12,000 | $0 | $24,879 | $3,198 | $40,077 |
| New Jersey | $12,000 | $0 | $56,917 | $7,316 | $76,233 |
| New Mexico | $12,000 | $34,602 | $99,260 | $12,759 | $158,621 |
| New York | $12,000 | $57,984 | $166,331 | $21,380 | $257,694 |
| North Carolina | $12,000 | $53,570 | $153,670 | $19,753 | $238,992 |
| North Dakota | $12,000 | $43,946 | $126,064 | $16,204 | $198,215 |
| Ohio | $12,000 | $46,934 | $182,864 | $23,505 | $265,303 |
| Oklahoma | $12,000 | $57,081 | $163,741 | $21,047 | $253,869 |
| Oregon | $12,000 | $0 | $64,391 | $8,277 | $84,667 |
| Pennsylvania | $12,000 | $60,604 | $173,848 | $22,346 | $268,799 |
| Rhode Island | $12,000 | $2,789 | $8,707 | $1,119 | $24,615 |
| South Carolina | $12,000 | $16,697 | $95,795 | $12,314 | $136,806 |
| South Dakota | $12,000 | $0 | $119,690 | $15,385 | $147,075 |
| Tennessee | $12,000 | $48,319 | $138,607 | $17,817 | $216,743 |
| Texas | $12,000 | $79,166 | $454,191 | $58,382 | $603,739 |
| Utah | $12,000 | $23,091 | $66,239 | $8,514 | $109,844 |
| Vermont | $12,000 | $0 | $20,742 | $2,666 | $35,408 |
| Virginia | $12,000 | $18,839 | $108,081 | $13,893 | $152,812 |
| Washington | $12,000 | $0 | $121,553 | $15,624 | $149,177 |
| West Virginia | $12,000 | $19,555 | $56,094 | $7,210 | $94,859 |
| Wisconsin | $12,000 | $0 | $125,212 | $16,095 | $153,307 |
| Wyoming | $12,000 | $14,296 | $41,009 | $5,271 | $72,577 |
| US Total | $612,000 | $1,280,242 | $5,664,249 | $728,081 | $8,284,572 |
| US Average | $12,000 | $25,103 | $111,064 | $14,276 | $162,443 |
Notes:
1. If State is missing any of the intersection business elements (State or local), apply base cost to run model.
Table A5. Cost of Ramp Data Collection by State.
| State | Identify Ramps and Business Elements1 |
Data Collection Non-State | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Non-State | Total | |||
| Alabama | $8,000 | $12,231 | $0 | $12,231 | $20,231 |
| Alaska | $8,000 | $11,515 | $0 | $11,515 | $19,515 |
| Arizona | $8,000 | $3,324 | $0 | $3,324 | $11,324 |
| Arkansas | $8,000 | $6,298 | $0 | $6,298 | $14,298 |
| California | $8,000 | $34,623 | $0 | $34,623 | $42,623 |
| Colorado | $8,000 | $2,499 | $0 | $2,499 | $10,499 |
| Connecticut | $8,000 | $3,033 | $0 | $3,033 | $11,033 |
| Delaware | $0 | $189 | $0 | $189 | $189 |
| Dist. of Columbia | $8,000 | $178 | $0 | $178 | $8,178 |
| Florida | $8,000 | $10,688 | $0 | $10,688 | $18,688 |
| Georgia | $8,000 | $17,051 | $0 | $17,051 | $25,051 |
| Hawaii | $8,000 | $242 | $0 | $242 | $8,242 |
| Idaho | $8,000 | $6,891 | $0 | $6,891 | $14,891 |
| Illinois | $8,000 | $18,783 | $2,912 | $21,695 | $29,695 |
| Indiana | $8,000 | $11,748 | $0 | $11,748 | $19,748 |
| Iowa | $8,000 | $2,286 | $0 | $2,286 | $10,286 |
| Kansas | $8,000 | $5,792 | $2,167 | $7,960 | $15,960 |
| Kentucky | $8,000 | $7,321 | $0 | $7,321 | $15,321 |
| Louisiana | $8,000 | $9,085 | $0 | $9,085 | $17,085 |
| Maine | $8,000 | $4,283 | $0 | $4,283 | $12,283 |
| Maryland | $0 | $4,606 | $919 | $5,525 | $5,525 |
| Massachusetts | $8,000 | $7,472 | $2,416 | $9,888 | $17,888 |
| Michigan | $8,000 | $17,904 | $0 | $17,904 | $25,904 |
| Minnesota | $8,000 | $8,651 | $50 | $8,701 | $16,701 |
| Mississippi | $8,000 | $8,747 | $0 | $8,747 | $16,747 |
| Missouri | $0 | $3,677 | $0 | $3,677 | $3,677 |
| Montana | $8,000 | $6,231 | $0 | $6,231 | $14,231 |
| Nebraska | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Nevada | $8,000 | $1,667 | $21 | $1,687 | $9,687 |
| New Hampshire | $8,000 | $2,905 | $0 | $2,905 | $10,905 |
| New Jersey | $8,000 | $5,628 | $1,836 | $7,463 | $15,463 |
| New Mexico | $8,000 | $11,309 | $0 | $11,309 | $19,309 |
| New York | $0 | $7,996 | $4,209 | $12,205 | $12,205 |
| North Carolina | $8,000 | $17,174 | $0 | $17,174 | $25,174 |
| North Dakota | $8,000 | $6,155 | $0 | $6,155 | $14,155 |
| Ohio | $8,000 | $14,764 | $5,361 | $20,124 | $28,124 |
| Oklahoma | $8,000 | $7,022 | $3,617 | $10,639 | $18,639 |
| Oregon | $8,000 | $6,610 | $0 | $6,610 | $14,610 |
| Pennsylvania | $8,000 | $18,312 | $6,567 | $24,879 | $32,879 |
| Rhode Island | $8,000 | $1,137 | $0 | $1,137 | $9,137 |
| South Carolina | $8,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $8,000 |
| South Dakota | $8,000 | $5,585 | $0 | $5,585 | $13,585 |
| Tennessee | $8,000 | $14,631 | $0 | $14,631 | $22,631 |
| Texas | $8,000 | $42,587 | $0 | $42,587 | $50,587 |
| Utah | $8,000 | $11,200 | $0 | $11,200 | $19,200 |
| Vermont | $8,000 | $2,662 | $0 | $2,662 | $10,662 |
| Virginia | $8,000 | $7,586 | $0 | $7,586 | $15,586 |
| Washington | $8,000 | $2,452 | $0 | $2,452 | $10,452 |
| West Virginia | $8,000 | $6,040 | $1,110 | $7,150 | $15,150 |
| Wisconsin | $8,000 | $7,276 | $0 | $7,276 | $15,276 |
| Wyoming | $8,000 | $7,504 | $0 | $7,504 | $15,504 |
| US Total | $368,000 | $433,549 | $31,185 | $464,734 | $832,734 |
| US Average | $7,216 | $8,501 | $611 | $9,112 | $16,328 |
Notes:
1. If State is missing any of the ramp business elements (State or local), apply base cost to run model. Assume no ramps on local, non-Federal-aid roads.
Table A6. Cost of Volume Data Collection by State.
| State | Non-Federal-aid Segments | Intersections > 400 ADT1 |
Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Non-State, > 400 ADT | Non-State, < 400 ADT | Segment Total |
||||||||
| Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Estimation | Rural | Urban | Estimation | ||||
| Alabama | $31 | $0 | $28,290 | $39,929 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $100,251 | $35,206 | $135,457 |
| Alaska | $1,478 | $331 | $4,007 | $4,096 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $41,911 | $5,774 | $47,685 |
| Arizona | $756 | $930 | $15,145 | $45,815 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $94,647 | $22,540 | $117,187 |
| Arkansas | $424 | $299 | $32,868 | $21,314 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $86,906 | $34,657 | $121,563 |
| California | $44 | $5 | $28,241 | $137,427 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $197,716 | $59,631 | $257,348 |
| Colorado | $129 | $0 | $27,097 | $33,855 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $93,081 | $30,617 | $123,698 |
| Connecticut | $30 | $65 | $2,302 | $24,949 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $59,345 | $7,426 | $66,771 |
| Delaware | $2,199 | $6,817 | $108 | $1,732 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $42,856 | $2,202 | $45,058 |
| Dist. of Columbia | $0 | $4,406 | $0 | $212 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $36,618 | $520 | $37,137 |
| Florida | $0 | $9 | $14,468 | $156,044 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $202,522 | $42,164 | $244,685 |
| Georgia | $14 | $75 | $30,085 | $70,597 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $132,770 | $42,782 | $175,553 |
| Hawaii | $1 | $80 | $640 | $3,586 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $36,306 | $1,525 | $37,832 |
| Idaho | $7 | $0 | $15,908 | $9,443 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $57,358 | $16,813 | $74,171 |
| Illinois | $348 | $1,018 | $36,091 | $66,818 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $136,275 | $48,307 | $184,582 |
| Indiana | $27 | $5 | $27,328 | $39,748 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $99,107 | $33,613 | $132,720 |
| Iowa | $5 | $0 | $29,351 | $14,098 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $75,454 | $39,813 | $115,267 |
| Kansas | $13 | $0 | $46,334 | $20,823 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $99,170 | $48,658 | $147,828 |
| Kentucky | $13,286 | $647 | $19,726 | $22,468 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $88,128 | $27,433 | $115,561 |
| Louisiana | $5,052 | $646 | $15,250 | $25,690 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $78,638 | $21,343 | $99,981 |
| Maine | $2,018 | $9 | $5,911 | $4,794 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $44,733 | $7,921 | $52,653 |
| Maryland | $511 | $482 | $5,219 | $30,742 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $68,953 | $11,192 | $80,146 |
| Massachusetts | $29 | $181 | $2,966 | $45,260 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $80,436 | $12,571 | $93,008 |
| Michigan | $10 | $9 | $29,307 | $58,298 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $119,625 | $42,277 | $161,901 |
| Minnesota | $19 | $32 | $83,913 | $67,860 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $183,825 | $48,030 | $231,854 |
| Mississippi | $176 | $406 | $22,025 | $17,273 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $71,880 | $26,013 | $97,893 |
| Missouri | $6,492 | $259 | $11,593 | $12,783 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $63,126 | $40,920 | $104,046 |
| Montana | $730 | $33 | $27,373 | $5,394 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $65,529 | $25,930 | $91,459 |
| Nebraska | $10 | $0 | $32,747 | $10,817 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $75,574 | $32,413 | $107,987 |
| Nevada | $570 | $159 | $11,128 | $13,856 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $57,713 | $12,757 | $70,470 |
| New Hampshire | $1,090 | $259 | $3,779 | $8,434 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $45,562 | $6,749 | $52,311 |
| New Jersey | $9 | $14 | $2,767 | $55,274 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $90,064 | $13,579 | $103,643 |
| New Mexico | $2,533 | $46 | $23,472 | $11,953 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $70,003 | $23,681 | $93,684 |
| New York | $491 | $152 | $25,731 | $78,377 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $136,751 | $39,682 | $176,433 |
| North Carolina | $46,385 | $40,573 | $4,113 | $38,251 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $161,322 | $36,661 | $197,983 |
| North Dakota | $38 | $14 | $32,201 | $2,601 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $66,854 | $30,075 | $96,929 |
| Ohio | $1,044 | $0 | $28,989 | $77,627 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $139,660 | $35,220 | $174,880 |
| Oklahoma | $0 | $0 | $33,413 | $27,014 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $92,427 | $39,064 | $131,491 |
| Oregon | $71 | $5 | $15,303 | $21,428 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $68,806 | $20,482 | $89,289 |
| Pennsylvania | $13,098 | $4,541 | $22,055 | $72,330 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $144,024 | $41,475 | $185,499 |
| Rhode Island | $43 | $66 | $432 | $9,019 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $41,560 | $2,246 | $43,806 |
| South Carolina | $13,532 | $27,781 | $9,227 | $11,835 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $94,375 | $22,854 | $117,229 |
| South Dakota | $4 | $0 | $28,985 | $4,906 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $65,895 | $28,555 | $94,450 |
| Tennessee | $0 | $0 | $29,341 | $39,033 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $100,375 | $33,068 | $133,443 |
| Texas | $13,082 | $1,076 | $71,188 | $157,073 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $274,419 | $108,357 | $382,776 |
| Utah | $40 | $75 | $13,235 | $21,345 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $66,695 | $15,803 | $82,497 |
| Vermont | $9 | $0 | $4,546 | $2,185 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $38,740 | $4,948 | $43,689 |
| Virginia | $30,748 | $31,541 | $1,068 | $24,233 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $119,590 | $25,785 | $145,375 |
| Washington | $0 | $0 | $23,009 | $37,588 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $92,598 | $28,999 | $121,597 |
| West Virginia | $21,231 | $6,335 | $843 | $4,728 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $65,137 | $13,383 | $78,520 |
| Wisconsin | $21 | $0 | $34,304 | $35,930 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $102,255 | $39,829 | $142,084 |
| Wyoming | $454 | $74 | $8,728 | $4,048 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $45,305 | $9,784 | $55,088 |
| US Total | $178,331 | $129,455 | $1,022,149 | $1,750,935 | $816,000 | $0 | $0 | $816,000 | $4,712,870 | $1,401,327 | $6,114,197 |
| US Average | $3,497 | $2,538 | $20,042 | $34,332 | $16,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000 | $92,409 | $27,477 | $119,886 |
Notes:
1. Assumed all State intersections are >400 ADT.
Table A7. Annual Data Maintenance Cost by State.
| State | Segments>400 ADT | Intersections >400 ADT1 |
Ramps | Volumes | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $3,636 | $3,521 | $306 | $23,787 | $31,250 |
| Alaska | $501 | $577 | $288 | $62,988 | $64,354 |
| Arizona | $2,144 | $2,254 | $332 | $76,530 | $81,261 |
| Arkansas | $2,936 | $3,466 | $210 | $42,180 | $48,791 |
| California | $7,677 | $5,963 | $866 | $56,838 | $71,343 |
| Colorado | $2,579 | $3,062 | $250 | $24,619 | $30,510 |
| Connecticut | $925 | $743 | $152 | $12,225 | $14,044 |
| Delaware | $243 | $220 | $19 | $301,154 | $301,636 |
| Dist. of Columbia | $67 | $52 | $6 | $146,923 | $147,048 |
| Florida | $4,309 | $4,216 | $534 | $57,144 | $66,204 |
| Georgia | $4,478 | $4,278 | $426 | $36,519 | $45,702 |
| Hawaii | $219 | $153 | $24 | $4,091 | $4,486 |
| Idaho | $1,449 | $1,681 | $172 | $8,669 | $11,971 |
| Illinois | $4,963 | $4,831 | $723 | $79,843 | $90,359 |
| Indiana | $3,584 | $3,361 | $392 | $23,412 | $30,749 |
| Iowa | $3,252 | $3,981 | $229 | $14,638 | $22,100 |
| Kansas | $3,378 | $4,866 | $265 | $22,814 | $31,324 |
| Kentucky | $2,486 | $2,743 | $244 | $478,500 | $483,973 |
| Louisiana | $2,175 | $2,134 | $303 | $203,587 | $208,199 |
| Maine | $945 | $792 | $107 | $71,148 | $72,992 |
| Maryland | $1,247 | $1,119 | $184 | $45,070 | $47,621 |
| Massachusetts | $1,608 | $1,257 | $247 | $23,061 | $26,173 |
| Michigan | $4,960 | $4,228 | $448 | $29,848 | $39,483 |
| Minnesota | $5,673 | $4,803 | $290 | $52,316 | $63,081 |
| Mississippi | $2,709 | $2,601 | $219 | $32,512 | $38,040 |
| Missouri | $3,231 | $4,092 | $368 | $233,151 | $240,841 |
| Montana | $1,752 | $2,593 | $312 | $36,342 | $40,999 |
| Nebraska | $2,334 | $3,241 | $134 | $14,858 | $20,568 |
| Nevada | $1,025 | $1,276 | $169 | $32,643 | $35,113 |
| New Hampshire | $564 | $675 | $73 | $49,036 | $50,348 |
| New Jersey | $1,592 | $1,358 | $187 | $20,126 | $23,263 |
| New Mexico | $1,856 | $2,368 | $283 | $97,771 | $102,278 |
| New York | $4,351 | $3,968 | $610 | $56,145 | $65,075 |
| North Carolina | $3,645 | $3,666 | $429 | $2,912,727 | $2,920,468 |
| North Dakota | $1,788 | $3,008 | $154 | $13,315 | $18,265 |
| Ohio | $4,540 | $3,522 | $872 | $70,341 | $79,275 |
| Oklahoma | $3,399 | $3,906 | $325 | $20,142 | $27,772 |
| Oregon | $2,011 | $2,048 | $220 | $14,778 | $19,058 |
| Pennsylvania | $4,389 | $4,148 | $622 | $619,419 | $628,578 |
| Rhode Island | $268 | $225 | $28 | $6,774 | $7,295 |
| South Carolina | $2,789 | $2,285 | $271 | $1,384,120 | $1,389,465 |
| South Dakota | $1,785 | $2,855 | $186 | $11,420 | $16,247 |
| Tennessee | $3,021 | $3,307 | $366 | $22,792 | $29,485 |
| Texas | $10,940 | $10,836 | $1,065 | $548,032 | $570,872 |
| Utah | $1,293 | $1,580 | $280 | $15,366 | $18,519 |
| Vermont | $573 | $495 | $89 | $2,547 | $3,703 |
| Virginia | $3,019 | $2,579 | $379 | $2,084,737 | $2,090,714 |
| Washington | $2,786 | $2,900 | $245 | $20,199 | $26,130 |
| West Virginia | $1,420 | $1,338 | $179 | $920,714 | $923,651 |
| Wisconsin | $4,297 | $3,983 | $243 | $24,118 | $32,640 |
| Wyoming | $1,032 | $978 | $250 | $21,878 | $24,138 |
| US Total | $137,844 | $140,133 | $15,572 | $11,183,908 | $11,477,456 |
| US Average | $2,703 | $2,748 | $305 | $219,292 | $225,048 |
Notes:
1. Assumes all State intersections are >400 ADT.
Table A8. Net Present Value of Total Data Collection and Maintenance Costs by State, 2013-2029 (2013 Dollars).
| State | Net Present Value(2013$) |
|---|---|
| Alabama | $1,710,646 |
| Alaska | $1,563,196 |
| Arizona | $2,524,421 |
| Arkansas | $3,673,041 |
| California | $7,521,017 |
| Colorado | $1,443,152 |
| Connecticut | $1,166,314 |
| Delaware | $4,214,423 |
| Dist. of Columbia | $2,219,748 |
| Florida | $2,664,937 |
| Georgia | $2,256,461 |
| Hawaii | $405,146 |
| Idaho | $1,970,682 |
| Illinois | $2,391,017 |
| Indiana | $1,413,216 |
| Iowa | $1,287,978 |
| Kansas | $2,046,779 |
| Kentucky | $7,068,124 |
| Louisiana | $3,418,377 |
| Maine | $1,405,383 |
| Maryland | $1,167,713 |
| Massachusetts | $933,408 |
| Michigan | $3,075,341 |
| Minnesota | $3,420,092 |
| Mississippi | $2,486,481 |
| Missouri | $3,949,584 |
| Montana | $1,396,389 |
| Nebraska | $2,952,113 |
| Nevada | $1,245,659 |
| New Hampshire | $1,075,283 |
| New Jersey | $1,215,398 |
| New Mexico | $3,199,418 |
| New York | $2,021,263 |
| North Carolina | $40,318,314 |
| North Dakota | $3,876,285 |
| Ohio | $2,402,340 |
| Oklahoma | $2,247,197 |
| Oregon | $908,471 |
| Pennsylvania | $9,387,192 |
| Rhode Island | $502,918 |
| South Carolina | $19,314,453 |
| South Dakota | $1,272,084 |
| Tennessee | $1,930,305 |
| Texas | $10,427,967 |
| Utah | $1,023,058 |
| Vermont | $546,133 |
| Virginia | $27,691,589 |
| Washington | $3,069,362 |
| West Virginia | $12,885,487 |
| Wisconsin | $1,438,566 |
| Wyoming | $851,970 |
| US Total | $220,595,892 |
| US Average | $4,325,410 |
Visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/
Sarah Pascual
Sarah.Pascual@dot.gov
FHWA-SA-13-021
