Page 1 of 55

MAINE

2019 ANNUAL REPORT

Photo Source: 

Photo image courtesy of the Maine Department of Transportation
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 55

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................28

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................28

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................30

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................36

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................36

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................42

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................44

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................45

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................45

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................45

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................50

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................51
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 55

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.”
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 55

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.

Spot improvement project selection, particularly with regard to intersection safety, has been more driven by 

HSM methodology this year, with the deployment of a custom GIS intersection network screening process 

which computes excess crashes with EB adjustment for all intersections on public highways in Maine 

regardless of jurisdiction. We continue to work on collecting the necessary MIRE data elements such as 

horizontal curvature to expand our network screening capabilities to include roadway segment geometry in 

addition to measured crash experience. In addition to spot improvements projects, Maine has used lane 

departure crash data to systemically evaluate our highway network for potential centerline rumble strip 

locations as well as median cable barrier locations and has funded safety projects for both countermeasures. 

Due to continuing noise concerns expressed by residents, Maine's rumble strip program consisted entirely of 

sinusoidal style installations in 2018. 

Maine is looking to expand its 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 horizontal 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 executives created a new Office of Safety led by a director level position that reports directly to the 

Chief Engineer. The new Office of Safety consists of a highway safety engineering section and a crash records 

section providing a single unit within the Department with the resources needed to perform data-driven safety 

analysis and coordinate safety candidate identification and evaluation efforts. The primary responsibility of 

HSIP development and management was moved from our Bureau of Planning to the new Office of Safety.

While Maine’s overall crash rates have increased steadily since 2012, fatalities dropped this year from 172 in 

2017 to 137 in 2018. This reduction was in large part to significantly lower pedestrian fatalities for the year. 

Serious injury counts and rates have continued to decrease steadily despite the increase in overall crashes 

statewide.

The Department has also changed its’ oversight committee structure slightly. A Safety/Mobility Committee was 

created within MaineDOT comprised of a cross representation of MaineDOT functional areas that meets 

monthly to review and coordinate work on potential safety and mobility projects, and to provide input on 

prioritization of HSIP projects for inclusion in the work plan.

2019 Safety Performance Targets were successfully coordinated internally, with Maine's Highway Safety Office 

(Bureau of Highway Safety) and MPO partners. The 2020 Statewide performance targets have also been 

developed.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 55

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. 

After the submission of our 2018 HSIP report, MaineDOT executives created a new Office of Safety led by a 

director level position that reports directly to the Chief Engineer. The new Office of Safety consists of a 

highway safety engineering section and a crash records section providing a single unit within the Department 

with the resources needed to perform data-driven safety analysis and coordinate safety candidate identification 

and evaluation efforts. The primary responsibility of HSIP development and management was moved from our 

Bureau of Planning to the new Office of Safety.

In addition to identification of safety candidates through data driven analysis and network screening, the Office 

of Safety coordinates regularly with a wide variety of resources within MaineDOT including Regional 

Operations, Local Roads, our Active Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering, and Regional Planners to 

identify additional areas of concern and potential safety and spot improvement candidates and to ensure that 

HSIP funding is being used for projects that support the initiatives and strategies identified in Maine’s Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan.

The Department has also changed its’ oversight committee structure slightly. A Safety/Mobility Committee was 

created within MaineDOT comprised of a cross representation of MaineDOT functional areas that meets 

monthly to review and coordinate work on potential safety and mobility projects, and to provide input on 

prioritization of HSIP projects for inclusion in the work plan. This committee is co-chaired by the Safety Office 

Director and the State Traffic Engineer.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Office of Safety

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

• Other-Use Benefit Cost Criteria

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

Local roads are included with the state-wide project candidates. Maine captures crash and roadway data for all 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 55

public roads and can evaluate all locations within the state based on similar crash and benefit/cost 

performance comparisons. Local safety project requests based on crash concerns are reviewed and evaluated 

as part of the candidate screening process using our network safety screening tools and methods.

Maine has an on-line public crash data query tool available to them to help with local analysis - and 

MPOs/RPOs have utilized this tool and praise its capabilities. The Office of Safety is also available to provide 

data and technical assistance to MPOs and municipalities that would like help evaluating their safety areas of 

concern.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Environmental

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Though the Office of Safety is the primary unit responsible for the development of HSIP project candidates, we 

coordinate with other units throughout the organization daily. Candidates generated from data-driven safety 

analysis or identified through other means are field reviewed through road safety audits or assessments that 

generally involve our region traffic engineers, regional planners, active transportation planner, and ADA 

coordinator. We also include other subject matter experts throughout the Department as warranted based on 

the type of safety issues we are investigating. Other systemic and spot improvement HSIP candidates are 

generated by our Transportation Analysis Unit in the Bureau of Planning and Traffic Engineering Group in the 

Bureau of Maintenance and Operations. Appropriate countermeasures are evaluated by the Office of Safety for 

each candidate using the Highway Safety Manual and checked to make sure the proposed candidate is an 

HSIP eligible activity in support of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This results in a vetted list of projects 

recommended for funding ranked in order of safety benefit/cost. 

In our experience, safety and mobility concerns are most often inextricably linked and MaineDOT strives to 

consider both throughout the project evaluation process. To that end, the Department formed a new 

Safety/Mobility Committee charged with functioning as a formal vehicle for communication and coordination of 

all work being performed in both areas. The Safety/Mobility Committee is co-chaired by the Director of the 

Office of Safety, and State Traffic Engineer and permanent members of this committee come from the 

following units within the Department:

• Office of Safety (Engineering) 

• Office of Safety (Crash Records) 

• M&O (Traffic Engineering) 

• M&O (Region Traffic Engineer) 

• M&O (ITS Manager) 

• Planning (Regional Planner) 

• Planning (Active Transportation Planner) 

• Planning (Transportation Analysis) 

• Project Development (Multimodal Program Director) 

• Results & Information Office (ADA Coordinator) 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 55

• FHWA Maine Division (Safety & Operations Engineer) 

The Safety/Mobility committee generates a prioritized list of projects recommended for funding to the 

Department’s Core Executive Team for final approval and inclusion in the work plan.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

Federal partners. In addition to standard state partners such as the Bureau of Highway Safety, we 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. One 

means of communicating and coordinating with these external partners is through the Maine Transportation 

Safety Coalition (MTSC) which meets quarterly for the purpose of coordination. 

Our coordination efforts with our MPO/RPO partners occurs on an ongoing basis as well in addition to the 

performance target setting activities required each year. We try to include these partners in our road safety 

audit/assessment efforts and obtain their assistance in reviewing High Crash Locations within their respective 

areas for further investigation by the Office of Safety. These partners are also included in our annual regional 

"synergy" meetings as part of the work plan development process to coordinate all project work including 

safety work. 

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period. 

MaineDOT formed a dedicated Office of Safety to manage and coordinate the HSIP program. Reorganization 

of existing units to move the crash records unit formerly housed in Maintenance and Operations to the new 

Office of Safety. Creation of a Safety/Mobility Committee to better coordinate all safety and mobility project 

planning work.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

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

Our HSIP documentation will soon be revised to better reflect the organizational and committee structure 

changes at MaineDOT
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 55

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Right Angle Crash

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Shoulder Improvement

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Skid Hazard

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-Median Cable Barrier -install completed in 2014

• Other-Speed management

• Other-Guard rail/end treatment upgrades

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:8/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-As speci

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 55

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

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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Being evaluated as a systemic need

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Systemic approach being used to identify corridors of most exposure

• Probability of specific crash types
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 55

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

• 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 

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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-MaineDOT's Highway Corridor 

Priority classifications 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-HSM-based screenings
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 55

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

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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Part of intersection strategy along with center left turn lane considerations

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 55

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Benefit/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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 55

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Usually work with MaineDOT's Local Roads unit

• 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: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:8/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 55

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

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

Cost Effectiveness:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Systemic need

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Other-limited access highway Median width 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Risk factors noted above.

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

No
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 55

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

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: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-increasing number of pedestrian fatalities

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• 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
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 55

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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

• 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

Cost Effectiveness:1

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:8/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Part of Intersection Strategies

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 55

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Benefit/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: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:4/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Systemic funding - such as for centerline rumble strips

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• 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
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 55

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

Yes

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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Coordinated with towns where speed concerns are expressed

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 55

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: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:4/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Systemic funding - such as for centerline rumble strips

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 55

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: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:8/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Lane Departure, Bicycles, Pedestrians

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Benefit/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. 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 55

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: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:8/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• 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

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 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 55

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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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

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 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 55

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: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:12/31/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• Other-Maine State Police input

• Other-ramp design

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

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

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 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 55

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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Department saw this as a systemic need

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Median width 

Other-Limited access roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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? 

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
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 55

Program: Other-Speed management

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Coordinated with towns where speed concerns are expressed

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

program? 

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

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:10/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• 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? 

Funding set-aside
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 55

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic 

Volume 

Other-posted speed limit 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Evaluation of hardware

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

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? 

 40

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 55

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

MaineDOT continues to expand the use of ITS technologies and has assigned an ITS manager position within 

the Traffic Engineering section in the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations. The Department is in the 

process of creating our Transportation Management Center (TMC) and evaluating the deployment of additional 

technologies. The ITS Manager has a permanent/formal seat on the Department's newly-formed

Safety/Mobility Committee.

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 created and deployed a web-based GIS application to perform network safety screening of 

intersection assets in accordance with the HSM. Specifically, we have chosen to screen using excess 

expected average crash frequency with EB adjustment as our methodology. We have extended this method 

further by computing excess crash costs to provide weight and focus to those facilities that are experiencing 

the most severe injuries and fatalities in our efforts to lessen the number and severity of these events. We are 

continuing to acquire the necessary MIRE data elements to perform similar screening on roadway segments 

but that is a work in progress. The Department also uses HSM methods to perform alternative countermeasure 

analysis for individual locations and and prioritization of projects recommended for funding.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 55

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Calendar Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $8,152,420 $10,333,254 126.75%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$4,115,171 $4,115,171 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $12,267,591 $14,448,425 117.78%

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%

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? 

0%

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%
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 55

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%

Only the $4,115,171 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.

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 and pedestrian fatalities in 2018 were significantly lower than 

Maine’s 2017 level.

Systemic safety 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 456 total 

miles installed through 2018. 2016 was the first year where we fielded calls on public noise-related concerns, 

and those continued to a lesser extent during 2018. MaineDOT’s 2018 statewide rumble strip contract 

specified that only sinusoidal centerline rumble strips would be installed. That is likely to be the case moving 

forward.

MaineDOT used data-driven analysis to screen for horizontal curves with significant crash experience and 

identified specific areas where edge line/centerline rumble strips could be installed in the vicinity of the curve to 

decrease the likelihood of went-off-road crashes. These are programmed for installation in 2019.

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 2018. 

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

throughout the state in 2018. This program includes public engagement and road safety audits and seeks to 

identify potential bike/pedestrian hazard mitigation that could be funded through HSIP or other fund sources. 

MaineDOT is also in the process of developing a pedestrian safety toolbox to identify appropriate safety 

countermeasures for locations with demonstrated vehicle/pedestrian crash exposure.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 55

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJEC

T NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

022178.0

0

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

2 Locations $37288.64 $41431.83 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 4,767 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify 

opportunities 

for pedestrian 

infrastructure 

improvement

s including 

sidewalks 

and crossing 

improvement

s

020527.0

0

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

3 Locations $459919.82 $574899.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify 

opportunities 

for pedestrian 

infrastructure 

improvement

s including 

sidewalks 

and crossing 

improvement

s

019280.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $4685734.2

7

$6407962.1

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 4,100 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify 

opportunities 

for pedestrian 

infrastructure 

improvement

s including 

sidewalks 

and crossing 

improvement

s

021910.0

0

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

1 Intersection

s

$159000 $1350000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,45

6

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

018822.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Miles $344000.78 $382223.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

continue 

review of 

guardrail and 

end treatment 

safety 

performance.

022837.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersection

s

$101000 $210000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 8,960 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions

022885.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$241200 $333000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 11,59

0

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 55

PROJEC

T NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

reviewed 

locations

019001.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersection

s

$18450 $21000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 12,46

9

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

019002.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$1281596.0

9

$2047091.3

3

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther17,85

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

019006.0

0

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$1118152.4

5

$1242391.6

1

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,361 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

020211.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$458506.78 $509451.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 13,06

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

020213.0

0

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersection

s

$1154799.1

3

$1283110.1

5

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,053 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for

reviewed 

locations

020565.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$367363.51 $408181.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 7,735 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

020568.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$1177699.1

4

$1465324.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,99

9

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

021783.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$2052000 $2280000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,99

7

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022506.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$452013.87 $743302.31 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther13,05

1

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022879.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$425000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 7,102 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022887.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$182110.46 $283344.96 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,454 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 55

PROJEC

T NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

reviewed 

locations

023030.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$873000 $985000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,667 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022871.0

0

Lighting Lighting - other 1 Locations $917919.44 $1084938.4

4

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate26,76

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

023014.0

0

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersection

s

$901219 $1031910 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate2,300 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

020811.0

0

Interchange 

design

Extend existing lane on ramp 1 Ramps $455697.22 $556995.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate25,24

0

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

023775.0

2

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $1800 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,011 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Commercial 

Trucks and 

Buses

Large trucks 

are a safety 

concern due 

to the size 

and load 

differential 

between 

heavy trucks 

and 

passenger 

vehicles

020205.0

0

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersection

s

$2374876.4

7

$2638750.4

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 5,600 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions

020210.0

0

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersection

s

$1378000.6

6

$2577345 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,295 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions

022692.0

0

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersection

s

$3002700.6

8

$3803019.9

3

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 14,99

0

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions

022674.0

0

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on ramp 1 Locations $681450.01 $809500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

15,85

1

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022675.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 0.23 Miles $411944.06 $457715.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,968 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 55

PROJEC

T NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

022679.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $162006.2 $186840.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,17

7

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022683.0

0

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1 Locations $407928.69 $548608.24 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,512 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022694.0

0

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1 Locations $617220.08 $685800.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate19,46

0

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022695.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$22818.38 $25353.76 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,928 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022996.0

1

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $22500 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

10,18

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot

022996.0

2

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $5400 $28000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot

022996.0

4

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $48688.77 $54098.64 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot

022996.0

5

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $5850.06 $44000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot

022996.0

6

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $42246.18 $86940.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot

016336.1

7

Roadway Roadway - other 1 RSMS 

Signs 

Software 

Upgrade

$25110.19 $38867.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Systemic Data Inventory of 

Roadway 

Warning 

Signage for 

Safety

023004.0

0

Speed 

management

Radar speed signs 50 Signs $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Programmatic

, identifying 

locations of 

need and 

working with 

interested 

communities

Illegal/Unsaf

e Speed

Utilize 

portable and 

post-mounted 

dynamic 

speed 

feedback 

signs
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 55

PROJEC

T NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

020581.1

8

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 1 Miles $4480000 $5626522.7

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

explore 

pavement 

markings and 

sign 

enhancement 

opportunities

017518.0

0

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Locations $44965.49 $49961.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections explore 

pavement 

markings and 

sign 

enhancement 

opportunities

017515.0

0

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1 Locations $67500.03 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 

and Bicycles

Conduct 

focused 

statewide 

outreach

019404.0

0

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 1 Locations $34265.28 $559865.28 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

890 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify 

opportunities 

for pedestrian 

infrastructure 

improvement

s including 

sidewalks 

and crossing 

improvement

s

020204.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1226978.3

3

$1226978.3

3

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 8,000 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions

020587.0

0

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

2 Ramps $45000.00 $45000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Wrong Way 

Mitigation

021664.0

0

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1 Ramps $128899.23 $138600.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

12,66

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

solutions

022700.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

2 Intersection

s

$521276.92 $513517.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 6,380 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022829.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$27000.00 $189000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 11,33

2

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022873.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$64800.00 $325800.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,36

9

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 55

PROJEC

T NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

022881.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Miles $49000.00 $674500.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther20,38

1

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

022883.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Miles $49000.00 $386500.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther21,40

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

023010.0

0

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Ramps $18000.00 $18000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Wrong Way 

Mitigation

023346.0

0

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$37949.26 $55949.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther19,16

2

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections develop 

solutions for 

reviewed 

locations

023871.0

0

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity $400000.00 $489910.70 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

explore 

pavement 

markings and 

sign 

enhancement 

opportunities

21849 Roadway Rumble strips - center Miles $1450.65 $116588.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

identify 

priority areas 

where edge 

line and 

centerline 

rumble strips 

should be 

installed
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 55

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 161 136 164 145 131 156 160 172 137

Serious Injuries 782 895 982 865 815 754 746 728 685

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.110 0.951 1.140 1.010 0.913 1.050 1.070 1.140 0.910

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.370 6.260 6.830 6.010 5.680 5.080 4.980 4.810 4.560

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

13 11 10 15 11 19 21 23 9

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

52 81 101 59 88 64 72 75 72
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 55

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 55

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 55

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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 143 compared to the actual statewide FARS total of 137. 

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

6.4 37.6 0.29 1.69

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 55

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

27.4 84.6 1.49 4.59

Rural Minor Arterial 22.4 96.8 1.31 5.64

Rural Minor Collector 11.2 54.6 1.36 6.63

Rural Major Collector 33.4 139.6 1.49 6.22

Rural Local Road or 

Street

19.4 91.6 1.34 6.33

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

3.6 25.6 0.31 2.18

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.2 6.4 0.12 3.85

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

6.2 56.6 0.86 7.86

Urban Minor Arterial 7.8 67 0.77 6.58

Urban Minor Collector 0.4 4.6 0.71 8.16

Urban Major Collector 4.8 54.4 0.49 5.6

Urban Local Road or 

Street

4 26.4 0.87 5.68
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 55

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 or 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

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

Maine's 2018 crash experience saw a significant drop in Pedestrian fatalities as well as fatalities involving 

Commercial Vehicles from previous years. Our primary areas of concern remain Lane Departure Crashes 

(both head-on and went-off-road) and motorcycle crashes which are trending upward in 2018. 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 55

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:161.0

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

The following factors are likely to influence the ability of Maine to meet previous safety performance 

targets and need to be considered for future projections: • Maine’s economy and fuel prices remain 

stable at current levels. • Multi-agency safety efforts will continue to be refined and focused on 

primary serious crash trends such as lane departure and pedestrians • Based on recruitment 

difficulties along with state and local budgetary restraints, law enforcement agencies will continue to 

experience staffing challenges, 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 usage. That growing impairment problems translates to serious crash exposures. 

• Maine’s VMT is projected to increase due to population growth and economic factors by about 

0.51% per year moving forward from 2018. This increased traffic exposure increases our safety risk 

and may decrease the level of service on high volume roads. Maine Fatality data has varied widely 

during the 2018 Benchmark Performance (2014-2018) period ranging from 139 in 2018 to 172 in 

2017. The 5-year average was 151.6 through the period but was trending upward slightly until 2018. 

MaineDOT decided to set a 2020 fatalities target assuming a slight increase in the 2020 projection 

from the 2019 target until we see a leveling out in that trend line.

Number of Serious Injuries:737.0

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

Serious Injuries is one of Maine’s Safety Performance Areas that continues to show steady 

improvement over the years, but it too, has had erratic performance in the past. The significant 

difference between the high and low years in our 2014-2018 benchmark performance period make it 

prudent to see if we see a continuance in that downward trend. Maine decided to set a 2020 target of 

737 which is approximately equal to the 2019 performance target.

Fatality Rate:1.070

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

The following factors are likely to influence the ability of Maine to meet previous safety performance 

targets and need to be considered for future projections: • Maine’s economy and fuel prices remain 

stable at current levels. • Multi-agency safety efforts will continue to be refined and focused on 

primary serious crash trends such as lane departure and pedestrians • Based on recruitment 

difficulties along with state and local budgetary restraints, law enforcement agencies will continue to 

experience staffing challenges, 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 usage. That growing impairment problems translates to serious crash exposures. 

• Maine’s VMT is projected to increase due to population growth and economic factors by about 

0.51% per year moving forward from 2018. This increased traffic exposure increases our safety risk 
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 55

and may decrease the level of service on high volume roads. Maine Fatality data has varied widely 

during the 2018 Benchmark Performance (2014-2018) period ranging from 139 in 2018 to 172 in 

2017. The 5-year average was 151.6 through the period but was trending upward slightly until 2018. 

MaineDOT decided to set a 2020 fatalities target assuming a slight increase in the 2020 projection 

from the 2019 target until we see a leveling out in that trend line.

Serious Injury Rate:4.900

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

Serious Injuries is one of Maine’s Safety Performance Areas that continues to show steady 

improvement over the years, but it too, has had erratic performance in the past. The significant 

difference between the high and low years in our 2014-2018 benchmark performance period make it 

prudent to see if we see a continuance in that downward trend. Maine decided to set a 2020 target of 

737 which is approximately equal to the 2019 performance target.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:90.0

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

• As with statewide crash fatalities, this data has varied widely from year to year through the 

benchmark performance period, mainly due to the disparity observed from 2017 to 2018. Trends in 

2019 indicate a move upward from our recent low in 2018 towards an average year from a fatality 

perspective. • The 5-year Average for the 2014-2018 Benchmark Period was 89.6. It is hoped that our 

focused pedestrian outreach in 21 communities in Maine through STEP and HeadsUp programs will 

bring down our bike/ped fatality numbers moving forward, but until the problem locations identified 

through these efforts are mitigated we should assume a level target of 90 per year for 2020.

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

safety performance targets. 

Maine Bureau of Highway Safety and MaineDOT reviewed last year's targets and worked collaboratively to 

arrive at agreed upon goals and to make sure they are in context with the latest influencing factors. 

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

performance targets. The Department prepares suggested performance targets for each MPO as a starting 

point for discussion and provides the necessary data for them to evaluate their own past performance and to 

either accept MaineDOT's recommendation or to come up with their own. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

None
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 55

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

All five of Maine’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets were met. This was in large part to the unusual drop in 

pedestrian fatalities in 2018 which brought the overall and 5-year average benchmark fatal numbers and rate 

down. Maine’s serious injury numbers and rates have also been steadily decreasing since 2012 despite 

increased statewide VMT. Both factors contributed to our meeting the number of non-motorized fatalities and 

serious injury performance target as well. We are, however, concerned that our 2018 crash experience was a 

bit of a statistical outlier as many of our neighboring states have reported increases in these numbers. Our 

early 2019 crash reports would indicate we’re likely to see higher numbers this year. 

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

24 29 25 26 31 40 23

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

94 89 74 70 78 92 86
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 55

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

Systemic improvements like rumble strips 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 fatality rate increased from 2014 through 2017, but in 2018 we experienced a notable decrease, 

mainly due to a sharp decrease in the numbers of pedestrian fatalities reported. Our serious injury rate has 

been steadily decreasing since a peak in 2012. This downward trend continued in 2018. 

Our overall benefit-cost performance on mitigation efforts has been good. Systemic installations have also 

showed positive performance and we will likely expand these programs as we continue to explore new 

systemic safety programs that have proven to be successful in other states.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # miles improved by HSIP

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Policy change

• Other-Pedestrian Strategic Focus Outcomes

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

Creation of the new Office of Safety and HSM systemic safety screening tools have allowed significant 

improvements in identifying potential areas for systemic improvements. We are now focused on increasing our 

capability to screen for rural horizontal curves with excessive lane departure crash history for curve 

delineation/safety enhancements.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 55

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 101.4 389.4 0.68 2.59

Intersections 13.4 119.4 0.09 0.8

Pedestrians 13.4 51.6 0.09 0.34

Bicyclists 2 22.2 0.01 0.15

Older Drivers 38.4 99.4 0.26 0.14

Motorcyclists 21.2 123.4 0.66 0.82
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 55

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

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

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 55

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

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

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

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

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 55

Changeover in personnel due to the formation of the new Office of Safety and retirement of former safety 

professionals have required a pause in this effort to get new people up to speed.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 55

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)

Hermon Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 2.00 5.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 0.418207833806198

Portland Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 9.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 10.00 11.00 -

0.158749024412723

Scarborough Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 8.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 12.00 6.00 0.952124337367169

West 

Gardiner

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

9.00 5.00 4.00 13.00 5.00 0.424787965158584

Palmyra Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 13.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 18.00 5.00 2.41072385482414

Trenton Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

5.00 6.00 3.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.137830198398271

Peru Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

8.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 11.00 11.00 -0.97894237888103

Madison Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 129.492387514348

Newport Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.90671292177622

A sampling of spot improvement projects constructed in calendar year 2015. Injury numbers and benefit cost assessment based on crash history 3-years before and after construction complete.

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

Our rumble strip program continues to be an effective mitigation effort for head-on lane departure crashes and their associated injuries. Switching to sinusoidal rumble strips has also begun to improved public acceptance of their presence 

on the roadway.
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 55

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

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 55

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

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)

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

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
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 55

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

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

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. 

MaineDOT continues to explore and prototype methods for collecting the remaining elements. Our latest effort involved leveraging the GPS data stream from our ARAN 9000 pavement condition data collection vehicle to extract horizontal 

curvature of state highways and this is showing great promise. We should have this GPS data collection completed by the fall of 2019 as it's being completed concurrently with our regular network pavement data collection. We currently 

have no plans to perform this collection on local roads.

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

No

Our last assessment was completed in 2017

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2021
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 55

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

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

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 55

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 noninfrastructure 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.