Page 1 of 68

MAINE

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 68

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Disclaimer............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 33

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 33

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 36

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 38

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 38

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 51

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 54

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 56

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 56

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 57

Year 2017.............................................................................................................................................................. 57

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 61

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 62
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 68

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or 

data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data 

compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of 

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 68

Executive Summary

Maine has a data driven approach for HSIP project selection, assessing various aspects of crash performance. 

Before and After crash results comparisons on safety projects have consistently shown performance 

improvement over the years. HSIP selection process is re-evaluated each year to see if there are opportunities 

for enhancement and for improved alignment for the state's SHSP. Programmatic reviews have been 

completed and published for 1. centerline rumble strips and 2. median cable barrier and wrong way initiatives. 

Crash performance results have been positive.

Spot improvement project selection has been more driven by HSM methodology this year, with help from 

Maine's IT staff to set up a screening process for intersection assessment. In addition to any spot 

improvements projects are often systemic in nature, like centerline rumble strips and median cable barrier 

being also funded. Systemic approach was used in selecting centerline rumble strips during project years of 

2016-2020. There are about 415 miles of rumble strips now installed. Due to continuing noise concerns 

expressed by residents, Maine's rumble strip program will consist entirely of sinusoidal style installations in 

2018. 

Maine is looking to expand it's systemic approach to further impact lane departure crash reduction - Maine's 

leading crash concern. A more involved data analysis process is underway to develop a systemic approach to 

crashes on curves - a major segment of Maine's Went Off Road Crashes. Other broad strategies continue to 

address speed management, pedestrian safety and interstate wrong way ramp entries.

Pedestrian Safety emphasis has a solidified strategy that continues in 2018 where targeted outreach to 

communities is underway which includes safety reviews of locations where public expressed priority needs. 

Program is multi-agency involved and emphasis includes improved pedestrian visibility at night with 

sponsorship of materials from 3M/Scotchlite.

MaineDOT's Safety office is being enhanced in 2018 with lead staff being at a Director position and a high 

level second staff member will also be in place. The office will now include the crash records unit. 

A new SHSP was released in late 2017, had a media event just after its release in January 2018.

Fatalities did rise for a third year in the state to 172 after reaching a 70 year low in 2014. Pedestrian fatalities 

remain high for a third year, helping continue to drive the pedestrian outreach effort noted above.

Maine's CRASH/Roadway data is migrating from Maine's TIDE system to an Oracle-based Dashboard. 

Various individuals are working though side-by-side data query scenarios to validate data outputs.

2018 Safety Performance Targets were successfully coordinated internally, with Maine's Highway Safety Office 

(Bureau of Highway Safety) and MPO partners. The 2019 Statewide performance targets have also been 

developed.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 68

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

Maine's HSIP structure has several facets that together build a comprehensive safety strategy, and that 

structure is being enhanced in 2018:

• There will be a director level position and a high level engineering support person in place. In addition, 

there is one person whose focus is identifying specific locations of need, primarily intersections, and as 

noted above, the primary tool being used this year for initial system-wide screening is the Highway 

Safety Manual. 

• A wide variety of resources within MaineDOT are contacted to generate safety project needs including 

Regional Operations, Local Roads, Bike/Ped, Traffic Engineering 

• There is a Highway Safety Group within MaineDOT that has a cross representation of DOT functional 

areas that meets regularly and one of the tasks is to drive toward identifying work projects that fit 

leading areas of concern. 

• Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) stakeholders meet every 4 months, bringing together a variety 

of safety stakeholders . 

• MaineDOT's Safety Office is the coordinating point of all of this activity. 

• MaineDOT holds regional planning meetings to finalize Departmental needs, including safety and 

makes sure that related work projects are synchronized. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Safety Office

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The Safety Office is being restructured to strengthen it's efforts both internally and externally. Crash records 

will be joining the unit.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 68

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Other-Use Benefit Cost Criteria

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.

Local roads are included with the state-wide project candidates. Maine does capture crash and roadway data 

for Local roads and so is able to evaluate all locations within the state based on similar crash and benefit/cost 

performance comparisons. Local requests are also receieved based on crash concerns and are reviewed as 

part of the candidate screening process.

Maine does now have an on-line crash data access system available to them to help with local analysis - and 

MPOs/RPOs have utilized this tool and praise its capabilities.

Identify which internal partners (e.g., State departments of transportation (DOTs) Bureaus, Divisions) 

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-MPO/RPO; Bike/Pedestrian are being better integrated

Other-Environmental

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Executive, Planning (including local roads and bike/ped), Traffic Engineering, Project Development, all play a 

part in safety planning. MaineDOT continues to enhance its Work Plan approach to integrate safety into the 

planning process, looking to get safety in the planning thought process early on to consider not just standalone safety needs, but also opportunities that would complement upcoming paving and construction projects. 

Safety Office is able to review corridor project candidates in advance to identify safety needs that might align 

with other work. Broadly distributed solicitations to internal contacts are sent out several times during the 

planning process and generate safety improvement opportunities.

Traffic Engineering is actively using changeable message signs for creative messaging to the traveling public. 

A statewide public contest was held that invited the public to submit their message suggestions that was well 

received.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 68

A Highway Safety Group has been established that includes a wide operational representation and FHWA 

presence to look at overall state safety needs, funding philosophy and systemic opportunities. This group has 

embraced the systemic approach.

MaineDOT Regions have been very involved with Centerline Rumble Strip strategies, corridor reviews and 

project implementation.

A strong partnership between Bike/Ped Coordinator and Safety Office is established to kick off the state's 

Pedestrian outreach program.

MaineDOT's Office of Communications has been another close ally in preparing quality publications and using 

our social media platforms to get the safety word out.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Regional Planning Organizations (e.g. MPOs, RPOs, COGs)

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency

FHWA

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with external partners.

MaineDOT Safety Office has continuing communications and good relationships with all State, local and 

Federal partners. In addition to standard state partners, we do also coordinate with Bureau of Motor Vehicles 

and DHS for alcohol/drug-related issues. In addition, we regularly work with AAA, Maine Motor Transport 

Association, Maine Turnpike, Bicycle Coalition of Maine, United Bikers of Maine (motorcycles) and others. We 

look for input from all and communicate out to them when needed.

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

•

HSIP documentation has been updated to reflect current practices. 

• We continue to work on systemic identifying of curves with best opportunity for safety improvement, 

with hoped for including selected projects for upcoming work plan. 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 68

• Improved accurate documentation of centerline rumble-strip inventory to be coordinated with work plan 

opportunities. Synergy is determined through GIS layering of various DOT project types - especially 

paving work. 

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate. 

Continue to seek to balance funding of spot improvements where crash history has been clearly a problem 

(this has often been concentrated on intersections) with systemic opportunities related to Lane Departure 

mitigations and other core safety target areas. An ongoing challenge, as one example, is creating an equitable 

allocation for Bike/Ped needs.

We also look to diversify Lane Departure strategies to better identify and engineer horizontal curves of most 

safety opportunity. 

Maine is also currently updating the structure and staffing of the Safety Office to make it more effective.

Program Methodology

Does the State have an HSIP manual or similar that clearly describes HSIP planning, implementation 

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

HSIP Project Selection Process Final 1-27-18.docx

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety

Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 68

Shoulder Improvement

Segments

Wrong Way Driving

Other-Median Cable Barrier -install completed in 2014

Other-Speed management

Other-Guard rail/end treatment upgrades

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Speed management includes coordinated installation with towns of portable speed feedback signs.

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-As speci

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 68

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Being evaluated as a systemic need

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Highway Corridor Priority 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Systemic approach being used to identify corridors of most exposure
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 68

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 68

Other-MaineDOT's Highway 

Corridor Priority classifications 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-HSM-based screenings

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Program: Left Turn Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Part of instresection strategy along with center left turn lane considerations.

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 68

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost prioritization

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 68

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-Usually work with MaineDOT's Local Roads unit

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 68

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 68

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Cost Effectiveness : 1

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Systemic need

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Other-limited access highway Median width 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Probability of specific crash types

Other-Risk factors noted above.

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 68

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2018 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-increasing number of pedestrian fatalities

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Allocations will be determined through Departmental discussions

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 68

selection committee

Other-These projects are normally coordinated through MaineDOT's Bike/Ped coordinator

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Part of Intersection strategies

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 68

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Systemic funding - such as for centerline rumble strips

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Posted speed limit 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 68

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Systemic for both Head On and Went Off Road (WOR). Curves will be focus for WOR

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Program: Rural State Highways 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Largely lane departure issues.

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 68

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Often lane departure issues
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 68

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Program: Shoulder Improvement 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 68

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Often associated with lane departure, but could also relate to bike and pedestrian needs

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 68

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 68

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Lane departure related

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 68

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Program: Wrong Way Driving 

Date of Program Methodology: 12/31/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Laregely driven by ramp 

design components 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Probability of specific crash types

Other-ramp design

Other-Maine State Police input

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 68

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Program: Other-Median Cable Barrier -install 

completed in 2014 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Department saw this as a systemic need.

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Median width 

Other-Limited access roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Probability of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 68

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

Program: Other-Speed management 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-Coordinated with towns where speed concerns are expressed

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 68

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Program: Other-Guard rail/end treatment 

upgrades 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2018 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-State looking to make sure current standards met, especially in high speed/high volume locations

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Volume 

Other-Posted Speed Limit 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-Evaluation of hardware i

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 68

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Other-Selection of locations of need as noted above : 1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Upgrade Guard Rails

Safety Edge

Horizontal curve signs

Wrong way driving treatments

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Percent of spot vs. systemic vs. programmatic varies from year to year, but MaineDOT strives to have a 

balanced project portfolio.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 68

Stakeholder input

Other-MaineDOT has a Highway Safety Group represented by a variety of disciplines within the Department 

that helps collectively develop mitigation toolboxes for various safety needs.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

This area continues to expand. MaineDOT does have a couple of staff who are the 'go-to' contacts for 

connected vehicle-related items. When the SHSP was updated, MaineDOT did check if there any connected 

vehicle items that we would want to address. At that point in time, it was a little too early to fully flesh out any 

related strategies. There also is a re-energized ITS committee at MaineDOT that considers automated vehicle 

aspects. The Safety Office does sit in on those meetings.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

MaineDOT has focused in on system-wide intersection analysis using the HSM. System-wide, intersections go 

through several comparative screens to prioritize locations of most need, plus that prioritization methodology 

goes through one final review/adjustment to make sure there is an improved balance between Urban and Rural 

locations. With the pure analysis approach, Urban locations significantly dominate the priority location list. 

MaineDOT does expect the approach developed for intersections will expand to other infrastructure reviews.

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate.

The state has adopted a new Strategic Highway Safety Plan late in 2017 that engaged all focus area 

champions to update their areas and it also integrated latest aspects of Maine Bureau of Highway Safety's 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 68

Highway Safety Plan. MaineDOT's Safety Office and Traffic Engineer together reviewed all areas of the SHSP 

that could have safety engineering aspects included as strategies and made sure areas covered a broad set of 

current and upcoming safety opportunities.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 68

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Enter the programmed and obligated funding for each applicable funding category.

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $8,258,349 $9,021,022 109.24%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $4,009,242 $4,009,242 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$1,080,000 $483,031 44.73%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $13,347,591 $13,513,295 101.24%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and operated) or tribal safety projects?

0%

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects?

0%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Tribal projects are eligible, just none submitted during this reporting period.

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?

0%

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 68

0%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting 

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Only the $ 4,009,242.39 in Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) noted in the table summary found in Q23

Discuss impediments to obligating HSIP funds and plans to overcome this challenge in the future.

None. MaineDOT Safety Office continues to work with internal and external partners to coordinate and 

integrate safety and seek the best opportunities to cost-effectively improve traffic safety. This process 

continues to be enhanced over time.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

Yes

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on which the State 

would like to elaborate. 

Maine's leading crash exposure continues to be Lane Departure, experiencing 70% of state-wide fatalities in 

this category. 

Head-on fatalities have stabilized. Systemic opportunities are being evaluated to achieve a better funding mix 

that is reflective of SHSP priorities. From 2015 on, there has been an increase in installations on centerline 

rumble strips, with 415 total miles installed through 2017. 2016 was the first year where we faced a number of 

public noise-related concerns, and those continued to a lesser extent during 2017. MaineDOT pilotted another 

sinusoidal style rumble strip installation in 2017 and will be installing ONLY sinusoidal rumble strip in 2018.

Although not necessarily directly translating to HSIP funding, but certainly contributing to safety planning, there 

is continued dialogue with MPO's/RPO's on local safety needs and a cooperative approach on safety 

performance target setting. MPO's have focused more on high crash location mitigation in 2017. 

Pedestrian traffic fatalities are still a concern and a focused outreach program continues to be delivered 

throughout the state in 2018. Program includes public engagement, road safety audits and seeks to identify 

project needs that could be funded through HSIP or other fund sources. 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 68

A new Strategic Highway Safety Plan was delivered late in 2017 with many new additions reflecting the state's 

current and anticipated efforts.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 68

General Listing of Projects

List the projects obligated using HSIP funds for the reporting period.

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

018794.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Miles $204472 $671484 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

16,187 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify 

opportunities for 

pedestrian 

infrastructure 

improvements

018814.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Miles $3390.47 $119775.48 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

700 50 State Highway 

Agency

Exposure - lack of 

approach rail

Lane Departure Upgrade GR 

installations as 

needed

018874.00 Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

1 Miles $55800 $62000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

2,527 50 State Aid Spot Bicyclists Identify key 

locations for...high 

visibility pavement 

markings to 

identify bike lanes

019006.00 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $1106796.66 $1229774.07 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,303 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop solutions 

for reviewed 

locations.

020204.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Roundabout $2133775.23 $2581257.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

8,017 30 State Aid Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions including 

roundabouts

020205.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Roundabout $2374876.47 $2638750.42 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,095 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions including 

roundabouts

020581.17 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

1 Miles $4394110.82 $5493146.69 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

0 Systemic Lane Departure Good striping 

practices are 

important to 

enable vehicle 

lane departure 

warning 

technologies

021781.00 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $60300.01 $67000.01 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

2,486 45 State Aid Spot Intersections Develop solutions 

for reviewed 

locations.

021848.00 Roadway Rumble strips -

center

1 Miles $602415.1 $669350.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Identify where 

centerline rumble 

strips should be 

installed to reduce 

lane departure 

crashes.

022674.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Ramps $688950.01 $809500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

15,694 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop solutions 

for reviewed 

locations.

022681.00 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $62902.76 $69891.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

6,279 35 State Aid Spot Intersections Develop solutions 

for reviewed 

locations.

022692.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Roundabout $3001175.43 $3801325.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,930 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop solutions 

for reviewed 

locations.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 68

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

022996.01 Speed 

management

Speed 

management -

other

1 Locations $22500 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

10,140 55 State Highway 

Agency

Illegal/Unsafe 

Speed

Enhance Speed 

enforcement 

efforts by 

targetting high 

incident areas

022996.04 Speed 

management

Speed 

management -

other

1 Locations $48688.77 $54098.64 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,118 55 State Highway 

Agency

Illegal/Unsafe 

Speed

Enhance Speed 

enforcement 

efforts by 

targetting high 

incident areas

023004.00 Speed 

management

Radar speed signs 1 Signs $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 Programmatic 

working with 

interested 

communities

Illegal/Unsafe 

Speed

Utilize portable 

and postmounteddynamic 

speed feedback 

signs

023122.00 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

1 Signs $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 Programmatic, 

identifying 

locations of need 

andworking with 

interested 

communities

Pedestrians Continue a 

pedestrian safety 

signage and 

visible crossing 

program using 

RRFB’s at select 

locations

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 68

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the State for the past five years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 159 161 136 164 145 131 156 160 172

Serious Injuries 732 782 895 982 865 815 754 746 728

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.100 1.110 0.951 1.140 1.010 0.913 1.050 1.070 1.140

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.050 5.370 6.260 6.830 6.010 5.680 5.080 4.980 4.810

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

13 13 11 10 15 11 19 21 23

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

61 52 81 101 59 88 64 72 75
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 68

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 68

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

There is regular communication between MaineDOT's Safety Office and Maine Bureau of Highway Safety to 

make sure we are consistently reporting on state fatality levels and jointly making sure information is accurate 

and up to date.

For some of the data displays, MaineDOT's data warehouse numbers are used, when FARS data not available 

in desired split criteria, like by FFC or Rural/Urb. In these cases, FATAL data totals will vary slightly - like for 

URB/RUR by BY FFC, MAINEDOT data totals are 166 compared to the actual statewide FARS total of 172.

To the maximum extent possible, present this data by functional classification and ownership.

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

6.2 39 0.28 1.74

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 68

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0 0

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

26 89.4 1.41 4.85

Rural Minor Arterial 24.4 101.4 1.42 5.89

Rural Minor Collector 10.6 56.6 1.29 6.87

Rural Major Collector 30.2 149.4 1.36 6.71

Rural Local Road or Street 21.2 101.4 1.47 7.02

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

4 24.6 0.36 2.24

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0.4 6 0.24 3.57

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

6.8 55.4 0.95 7.76

Urban Minor Arterial 7.4 71.8 0.73 7.13

Urban Minor Collector 1 4.8 2.54 12.2

Urban Major Collector 6.4 55.2 0.66 5.71

Urban Local Road or Street 0.6 4.4 0.13 3.61
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 68

Year 2017

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 86.2 450.2 1 5.24

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

24.2 125 1.33 6.85

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 3.4 16.4 0.24 1.15

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

State Aid 33.8 187 1.2 6.62
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 68

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 68

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 68

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 68

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 68

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 68

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

Key areas for Maine are Lane Departure (both head on and went off road) and pedestrians. Motorcycle 

fatalities which had increased sharply in 2015, moderated in 2016, but increased again in 2017.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 165.0 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 68

There are some positive and negative influencers along with assumptions at play in the 

near future that will limit what improvement can be expected - Maine's first goal is to 

stabilize the increasing trends that are being experienced, and then return to an

improving trend. • Economy will remain fairly stable and fuel prices will stay at 

moderate levels that will not significantly impact travel. • Multi-agency safety efforts 

will continue to be refined and focused on primary serious crash trends such as lane

departure and pedestrians. • Law enforcement agencies will continue to experience 

enforcement and staffing challenges, with increasing demands beyond traffic safety 

reducing the effective crash-reducing impact that their on-road presence has. • 

Impaired driving is a growing concern both due to legalization of marijuana and 

increased illicit drug use like opiates, etc. That growing impairment problem translates 

to serious crash exposures. • Maine’s VMT will at the least remain stable at the current 

high levels or show slight increase based on the economic factors cited earlier. Some 

regional increases in traffic exposure may occur and decrease the level of service on 

select high volume roads. Maine’s Safety Performance Targets support the goals of the 

SHSP. A new SHSP was released in late 2017 and included many strategic updates. 

Fatalities increased again in 2017, largely impacted by Maine’s higher Pedestrian and 

Motorcycle deaths. We hope Maine’s increases over the past three years have hit their 

peak. Fatality Performance target looks to slightly decrease this number in 2018 and 

slightly more decrease for 2019. This target will continue to be conservative while we 

monitor both local and national trends – our first step is to take continued strategic 

actions to stabilize results and then strive for effective improvements that will move 

the trend back downward. 

Number of Serious Injuries 737.6 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

Serious Injuries is one of Maine’s Safety Performance Areas that have shown fairly 

steady improvement over the years, but it too, has erratic performance periods. 

Maine’s target: • Leaves 2018/2019 flat for the next two years, in line with the average 

recent lows of 2015/2016. These numbers will still realize an improvement in 5 year 

numbers, from 781.6 benchmark in 2017 to 737.6 in 2019 (a 5.6% improvement over 

the baseline). • All other influencing factors would remain the same as stated in the 

earlier Fatalities target discussion. 

Fatality Rate 1.100 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

The mileage exposure used in the rate development anticipates some increase in traffic 

volume, but does anticipate some flattening of the increasing trend we've experienced 

in recent years. There are some positive and negative influencers along with 

assumptions at play in the near future that will limit what improvement can be 

expected - Maine's first goal is to stabilize the increasing trends that are being 

experienced, and then return to an improving trend. • Economy will remain fairly 

stable and fuel prices will stay at moderate levels that will not significantly impact 

travel. • Multi-agency safety efforts will continue to be refined and focused on primary 

serious crash trends such as lane departure and pedestrians. • Law enforcement 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 68

agencies will continue to experience enforcement and staffing challenges, with 

increasing demands beyond traffic safety reducing the effective crash-reducing impact 

that their on-road presence has. • Impaired driving is a growing concern both due to 

legalization of marijuana and increased illicit drug use like opiates, etc. That growing 

impairment problem translates to serious crash exposures. • Maine’s VMT will at the 

least remain stable at the current high levels or show slight increase based on the 

economic factors cited earlier. Some regional increases in traffic exposure may occur 

and decrease the level of service on select high volume roads. Maine’s Safety 

Performance Targets support the goals of the SHSP. A new SHSP was released in late 

2017 and included many strategic updates. Fatalities increased again in 2017, largely 

impacted by Maine’s higher Pedestrian and Motorcycle deaths. We hope Maine’s 

increases over the past three years have hit their peak. Fatality Performance target 

looks to slightly decrease this number in 2018 and slightly more decrease for 2019. 

This target will continue to be conservative while we monitor both local and national 

trends – our first step is to take continued strategic actions to stabilize results and then 

strive for effective improvements that will move the trend back downward. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.900 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

The mileage exposure used in the rate development anticipates some increase in traffic 

volume, but does anticipate some flattening of the increasing trend we've experienced 

in recent years. Serious Injuries is one of Maine’s Safety Performance Areas that have 

shown fairly steady improvement over the years, but it too, has erratic performance 

periods. Maine’s target: • Leaves 2018/2019 flat for the next two years, in line with the 

average recent lows of 2015/2016. These numbers will still realize an improvement in 

5 year numbers, from 781.6 benchmark in 2017 to 737.6 in 2019 (a 5.6% improvement 

over the baseline). • All other influencing factors would remain the same as stated in 

the earlier Fatalities target discussion. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 91.0 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

NON-MOTORIZED FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY is a complex category that 

includes both Bike and Pedestrian data AND both Fatal and Serious Injury outcomes. 

Pedestrian Fatalities have sharply spiked in 2015 through 2017, but serious injuries 

(the larger proportion of this performance area) have been more stable. Overall, small 

number exposures are being evaluated here, so year-to-year variances are expected. • 

Overall plan is to first stabilize the experience and look for small incremental 

improvements in 2018-2019. • In addition to the general influencers mentioned in the 

Fatalities target, a focused pedestrian outreach program has been developed and 

launched in May 2017 and continues into 2018. The hope is that will moderate the 

number of pedestrian fatalities currently experienced. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 68

Describe efforts to coordinate with other stakeholders (e.g. MPOs, SHSO) to establish safety performance 

targets. 

ALL stakeholders (MPOs, Maine Bureau of Highway Safety (BHS), NHTSA, FHWA, MaineDOT) attended a 

safety performance targets setting work shops in 2016/17. From there, Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, 

NHTSA, FHWA, MaineDOT - all communicated together to arrive at agreed upon goals. BHS have reported 

identical targets in their 2017 submitted HSP and again in 2018. MaineDOT internally reviews proposed targets 

to make sure they are in context with latest influencing factors.

MaineDOT has earlier discussed its target setting philosophy with MPOs and how it would translate to MPO 

performance targets. MPO 2019 expectations essentially will mirror the incremental improvements of the statewide targets based on 20 17 benchmarks for each MPO (same approach as used for 2018, that seemed to be 

well. MPO targets are sent out to each MPO along with their 2017 benchmarks, and an opportunity to further 

discuss and adjust are provided to the MPOs.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

None

Applicability of Special Rules

Does the HRRR special rule apply to the State for this reporting period? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

27 19 25 29 25 26 23

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

69 79 94 89 74 70 75
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 68

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 68

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Infrastructure projects are evaluated each year with results included with HSIP (before/after injuries and B/C). 

Systemic improvements like rumble strips and median cable barriers are periodically reviewed for collective 

performance where installed.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

Maine's fatalities have increased in the last three years after reaching a 70-year low in 2014. Performance 

there is not good.

Serious injury rate however has been steadily decreasing..

Overall Benefit-Cost performance on mitigations has been good. Systemic Installations also have showed 

positive performance, and are leading the state to evaluate extending the risk factors to expand installations to 

additional locations where safety performance would likely have significant benefit.

What other indicators of success does the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and success of the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP

More systemic programs

Policy change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

Other-Pedestrian Strategic Focus Outcomes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Yes

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 68

A new SHSP was developed and released in late 2017.

Safety Manager has retired and MaineDOT will be fortifying this role with 2 higher classification staff people 

(one at a Director role) to improve a variety of aspects of the operation. Crash Records will be integrated into 

the Safety Office (previously with Traffic Engineering)

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure Head On+Went Off 

Road

99.8 421.4 0.68 2.87

Intersections All 21 181.2 0.14 1.23

Pedestrians All 15.4 52.6 0.1 0.36

Bicyclists All 2.4 22.6 0.02 0.15

Older Drivers All 42.6 178.6 0.29 1.21

Motorcyclists All 20.2 132.2 0.14 0.9
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 68

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Data query criteria

For 'Intersections'= 3, 4, or 5 or more legs, but does NOT include roundabouts.

For 'Pedestrians'=Person Type = Pedestrian, Injury level = Incapacitating (similar approach for Bike)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 68

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Median Cable Barrier 

Description: 

Median cable barriers were installed 

on various sections of interstate and a 

section of US 1, Brunswick where 

median widths were 50' or less. 

Target Crash Type: Cross median 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 76 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 6 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

4 fatalities occurred prior to 

installation, none have been reported 

since. Minor crashes involving 

vehicles striking the barrier system 

have increased. 

File Name: InterstateCrossoverANDwrongwayRPT_APR1218.docx
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 68

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Winthrop Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 85.00 124.00 2.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 42.00 44.00 139.00 170.00 396.924444444444

Sabattus Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

2.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 10.00 0.631566692860677

Jay Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 6.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 7.00 -2.32171355384787

Bangor Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

20.00 29.00 1.00 15.00 9.00 35.00 39.00 1.96573207526469

Sanford Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

15.00 19.00 2.00 6.00 8.00 23.00 27.00 60.8269023671204

Wells Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

9.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 10.00 4.00 -0.53380243244063

Belgrade Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

2.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 7.00 9.00 22.7663454024486

Waldoboro Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.499531689041524

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Projects above reflect those funded through HSIP that are location specific (signing and line striping projects are examples of what is not included in this list) . Cumulative B/C is 34.3, largely positively influenced by the strong performance 

of the rumble strip project - shown in the first row of the data above.

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate.

Despite increasing fatal trends over the last several years, Maine's HSIP data reflects successful outcomes with particularly good results in its systemic efforts (rumble strips and median cable barriers)
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 68

Compliance Assessment

What date was the State’s current SHSP approved by the Governor or designated State representative?

 11/20/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2022

When does the State anticipate completing it’s next SHSP update?

 2022

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

SHSP has just been fully updated and approved by FHWA using current reporting criteria. A media event was held in January 2018.

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 68

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 68

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 100.00 25.00 25.00 81.82 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Maine is in overall good shape for MIRE. 

While there may be zero's entered in some areas above, MaineDOT does, in fact, have the core of the necessary required info in our data, but may have certain characteristics of those MIRE elements that we look to enhance so they 

fully meet MIRE descriptions. For example, for INTERSECTIONS - the UNIQUE JUNCTION IDENTIFIER... MaineDOT does currently have a NODE/ELEMENT identifier for all roads. 

But we know that as we are updating our systems, these elements may be enhanced. Those '0' FDE's, even though they are largely in place, we are showing 0% just as an internal reminder to review.

The one element that needs to be newly developed is Unique Interchange Identifier (178).

MaineDOT needs to develop intersection and interchange assets, including a way of identifying and designating ‘approaches’ to intersection and interchanges.

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

Maine is fortunate to have very good data for all classes of roads, including local. As a result, MaineDOT has a limited number of outstanding MIRE needs. The additional needs are definitely on MaineDOT's radar and we expect to be 

meeting the requirements before the 9/30/26 deadline.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form A Injury - Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No Includes:

Severe Laceration, Broken of Distorted 

Limb, Skull or Chest Injury

Abdominal Injury, Unconciousness at or 

when taken from the crash scene, Unable 

No NA No
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 68

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

to leave the crash scene without 

assistance.

Crash Database A Injury - Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary A injury = Incapacitating Injury No (From metadata)

A Inj: Person had a bleeding wound, had a 

distorted member, or had to be carried from 

the scene.

No See above No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

Maine crash reporting partners have met on this and to discuss other updates to crash reporting criteria and crash report form content. Those updates should be incorporated shortly. It's about ready to go, and we just need to work out the 

details for production. Here's more on that process:

State of Maine Crash Report Form MMUCC V5 Update

The meeting attendees agreed to several changes to the State of Maine Crash Report Form with the goal of improving data collection and Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) compliance.

Updated and New Data Elements

The updated and new (denoted by *) data elements are:

• Secondary Crash* 

• Injury Degree (see detail below)

• Driver Distracted Action 

• Driver Distracted Source 

• Trailer VIN 

• Trailer Plate Number 

• Trailer Plate State 

• Law Enforcement Suspects Alcohol Use 

• Law Enforcement Suspects Drug Use 

• Automated Drivers 

• Extricated 

• Vehicle Types 

• Vehicle Makes 

INJURY DEGREE Detail:

Injury Degree Attributes

Description

The injury severity level for a person Involved in a crash. The determination of which attribute to assign should be based on the latest information available at the time the report is completed, except as described below for fatal Injuries.

Fatal Injury (K): A fatal injury is any injury that results in death within 30 days after the motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred. If the person did not die at the scene but died within 30 days of the motor vehicle crash in which the 

injury occurred, the injury classification should be changed from the attribute previously assigned to the attribute “Fatal Injury.”

Suspected Serious Injury (A): A suspected serious injury is any injury other than fatal that results in one or more of the following:

• Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood 
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 68

• Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg) 

• Crush injuries 

• Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations 

• Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body) 

• Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene 

• Paralysis 

Suspected Minor Injury (B): A minor injury is any injury that is evident at the scene of the crash, other than fatal or serious injuries. Examples include lump on the head, abrasions, bruises, minor lacerations (cuts on the skin surface with 

minimal bleeding and no exposure of deeper tissue/muscle).

Possible Injury (C): A possible injury is any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal, suspected serious, or suspected minor injury. Examples include momentary loss of consciousness, claim of injury, limping, or complaint of pain or 

nausea. Possible injuries are those that are reported by the person or are indicated by his/her behavior, but no wounds or injuries are readily evident.

No Apparent Injury (O): No apparent injury is a situation where there is no reason to believe that the person received any bodily harm from the motor vehicle crash. There is no physical evidence of injury and the person does not report any 

change in normal function.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2022

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Most recent review was 5/3/17 and summary of findings were covered in last year's HSIP annual report.
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 68

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Project Selection Process Final 1-27-18.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

InterstateCrossoverANDwrongwayRPT_APR1218.docx

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 68 of 68

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or 

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data are 

available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance 

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes 

in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. 

Programmed funds mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects. 

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned 

for the fiscal year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.