Page 1 of 65

NEW HAMPSHIRE
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 65

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 6

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 29

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 29

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 32

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 35

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 35

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 48

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 51

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 53

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 53

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 54

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 58

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 60
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 65

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.” 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 65

Executive Summary

The overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. The infrastructure-related 

projects are selected and justified by proven data-driven approaches. All highway safety improvement 

projects should be chosen and implemented with the goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads and the achievement of state safety targets. Some projects will directly impact these performance

measures through the implementation of engineering or behavioral countermeasures, while others may 

advance the data systems and analysis capabilities of the state to more accurately identify locations with the 

highest potential for safety improvements, evaluate the performance of highway safety improvement 

projects, or identify high risk roadway characteristics and driver behaviors.

In 2006, FHWA established a new approach to advancing safety by focusing on performance. In order to 

effectively meet performance targets, States must apply limited resources to the areas that are most likely to 

achieve results. The requirement to develop and regularly update SHSP ensures that this approach is 

maintained. NH annually tracks and reports performance measures including the number of fatalities and 

severe injury rates per vehicle mile traveled. Several other performance measures of specific interest to the 

State are listed in the NH SHSP. 

New Hampshire has embraced the goals and vision of Toward zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. The State named its 

SHSP New Hampshire Driving Toward Zero in recognition of the National plan, and created a public outreach 

program with the same name to promote change in New Hampshire's safety culture (nhdtz.com). The 

initiative recognizes that even one traffic death is unacceptable and sets the aggressive goal to reduce all 

deaths on the Nation's highways, a goal virtually achieved in the aviation industry in the past several decades. 

Dozens of public and private stakeholders from across the State have come together in a collaborative effort 

to update and carry out the strategies in the SHSP. The vision of Driving Toward Zero is embodied in NH's goal 

of reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries by 50% by 2030, equaling an annual reduction of 

3.4%. This is measured as a five-year rolling average with the most recent data. Maine and Vermont share this 

target, and to that end MaineDOT and VTrans have formed a tri-state collaborative partnership with NHDOT 

to more effectively reach the collective regional goal. NHDOT has also incorporated the reduction of Fatalities 

into their Balanced Scorecard, representing one of the twelve Strategic Objectives of the agency.

The Concept of a focused approach has been further reinforced with requirements for data-driven decision 

making and resource allocation. 23 USC 148(c)(2), as amended by 1401(a)(1) of SAFETEA-LU, identification and 

Analysis of Highway Safety Problems and Opportunities, delineates specific requirements for determining 

safety problem identification and countermeasures analyzes. NH has been moving forward with 

implementation of Highway Safety Manual (HSM).

Map 21 and FAST ACT continues building on the concept of a safety data system that has the capability to 

identify key safety problems, establish their relative severity, and then adopt strategic and performance based 

goals to maximize safety. Recent improvements to the NH Data system include a phased initiative to 

implement electronic crash reporting through the States's crash Report Management System (CRMS), the 

compilation of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE), and the 

completion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Traffic Records Assessment. One of 

the key outcomes of the Traffic Records Assessment was that performance measures for data quality are 

needed, including measures of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration and accessibility in 

order to guide improvements to the data and data systems.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 65

The States are required to define a clear linkage between the behavioral NHTSA- funded Highway Safety 

Program and the HSIP through the State SHSP. The 2012 version (2nd edition) of the NH SHSP identifies 9 

critical emphasis areas (CEA) to be addressed by safety safety stake holders in NH, listed below. In 2014, the 

Education and Public Outreach committee was created and makes the tenth (10th) emphasis area. The 

Committee has been meeting since July 2014 and has developed documentation that states the challenge, 

primary focus and goals for this emphasis area.

 *Distracted Driving

*Impaired Driving

*Speeding

*Vehicle Occupant Protection

*Teen Traffic Safety

*Older Drivers

*Vulnerable Roadway Users

*Comprehensive Safety Data Improvement

*Crash Locations

*Education and Public Outreach

 The 4 E's of safety (education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency medical services) should be considered 

in selection and development of HSIP projects, however the intent of the HSIP is primarily target engineeringrelated countermeasure improvements. The crash types of special interest have been identifies in the crash locations 

Critical Emphasis Area. The next major update to the SHSP is completed and is dated 2017 to 2021.

With respect to eligibility for funding, 23 USC 148(a)(4) provides a sample listing of eligible highway safety 

improvement project types. However, it is important to note that only data-driven projects that target strategies 

identified in the State SHSP are eligible for funding in NH. Furthermore, given the limited funding available, funds 

should be prioritized to help ensure that projects with the greatest safety return will be the top priority. For example, 

addressing crashes involving animals is a possible eligible activity but since it is not addressed in the current version 

of the SHSP as a CEA or related strategy, and higher safety needs have been identified, HSIP funds should not be 

used for that purpose in NH. 

23 USC 148(e)(2) makes clear that other federal-aid funds are eligible to support and leverage the safety program. 

Improvements to safety features, such as guardrail, that are routinely provided as part of a broader Federal-aid 

project should be funded from the same source funds as the broader project when that safety feature is included in 

the broader project, not HSIP funds. This allows the HSIP funds to be reserved for stand-alone safety projects 

thereby allowing for true targeting of safety needs. This is consistent with the provision of separate funding for 

safety projects and with FHWA's long-standing position on the use of safety funds.

Crash data in this report reflect 2016 crash data in order to align numbers with the report that the Office of Highway 

Safety submits to NHTSA. 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 65

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. 

The HSIP committee consists of Assistant Director Project Development, Design, Traffic, Maintenance, Bike 

Pedestrian coordinator and Planning personnel from the NHDOT, RPCs, MPOs and FHWA. Committee meetings 

are held monthly to review project selection and progress reports from project managers. Regional Planning 

Commissions are encouraged to incorporate the HSIP process in their Transportation Improvement Plan 

development. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Design

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

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

Municipally-maintained local roads and intersections are included in the screening with State-maintained sites 

and are evaluated using the same methodology. The majority of rural collector as well as rural and urban local 

road (functional class 8, 9, and 19) traffic data are not available, and therefore the volumes are estimated based 

on similar roads that have measured data. Urban and rural local roads are categorized separately from the other 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 65

functional classes in network screening to account for the estimation of volume data. The State is working to 

improve volume data on all public roads.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-Regional Planning Commission staff

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The State’s HSIP is centrally administered. Annually, the Bureau of Highway Design performs a statewide 

network screening of crashes on all roadway types and distributes results to NHDOT Districts, Bureau of Planning 

and Community Assistance, and Bureau of Traffic, as well as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and 

Regional Planning Commissions (RPC). These stakeholders are encouraged to review the results of the analysis 

and provide comments on known aspects of specific locations. Comments may include, but is not limited 

to: recent work in the area, significant changes to traffic patterns or volumes, upcoming capital projects in the 

area, local experience/insight on crashes, etc. 

The HSIP committee consists of Assistant Director Project Development, Design, Traffic, Maintenance, Bike 

Pedestrian coordinator and Planning personnel from the NHDOT, RPCs, MPOs and FHWA . Committee 

meetings are held monthly to review project selection and progress reports from project managers. Regional 

Planning Commissions are encouraged to incorporate the HSIP process in their Transportation Improvement Plan 

development. 

HSIP Committee and other stakeholders will receive a list of sites identified through network screening for 

review. Some sites may go beyond the scope of an HSIP project, which typically means their cost is greater 

than the anticipated benefits, or the overall cost of right-of-way, environmental, and scope of improvements is 

of a magnitude that it is of an improvement is deemed too costly or prohibitive in relation to other potential 

HSIP projects. These sites are recommended for consideration in the long-range capital improvement plans
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 65

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

Other-Regional Planning Commission Staff

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

The HSIP committee meets monthly with internal and external partners receiving the same coordination. Email 

is distributed to all committee members. Some of the emails include meeting notification, agendas, meeting 

minutes, any documents for projects that will be reviewed at the meeting and the monthly project lists.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

 The FAST Act removed the use of HSIP funds for noninfrastructure projects. This removed the marketing 

contract NHDOT had to for public outreach and media campaigns. For education and public outreach in the 

future, we will work with the Office of Highway Safety to use NHTSA funds for any media campaigns.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 65

File Name:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety

Rural State Highways

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash

Shoulder Improvement

Segments

HRRR

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-EPDO 

Traffic 

Volume Other-Site Subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 65

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 65

All crashes 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Site Subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 65

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 65

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Site Subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 65

Program: Left Turn Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 65

Ranking based on B/C : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Other-RSA local agency

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 65

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-RSA request from local agencies

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 65

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 65

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

No

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

no medians on local roads

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 65

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

no medians on local roads

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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).

Ranking based on B/C : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 65

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

no medians on local roads

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 65

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-EPDO 

Traffic 

Volume Other-Site Subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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?

No

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Rural State Highways 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 65

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 65

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

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume 

Median width 

Other-Site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 65

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume Roadside features 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

EPDO
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 65

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-Run off the Road

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

Yes
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 65

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

Yes

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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 : 50

Available funding : 50

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Horizontal curve signs

Other-intersections

Other-F--terminal Replacements

Other-Other Median Barriers

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

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

Engineering Study
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 65

Rumble Strips

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Install/Improve Signing

Stakeholder input

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Horizontal curve signs

Other-intersections

Other-F--terminal Replacements

Other-Other Median Barriers

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

NHDOT has not started implementing connected vehicles and ITS technologies. This will need to be addressed 

in the future years. There is State legislation being reviewed by the House Transportation committee that 

defines connected vehicles but there are no changes or requirements yet for the Department of Transportation or 

Department of Safety.

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.

The NHDOT uses the Highway Safety manual for Road safety audits. The benefit to cost ratio (B/C 

ratio) calculations for the NHDOT program require the value to be greater than one to be an eligable safety 

improvement using HSIP funds. The value for the crash modification factor used in the b/c ratio calculation is 

selected from the tables in the Highway Safety Manual.

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

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 65

Yes

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

The Road Safety Audit program changed its application criteria and when the applications can be accepted. 

The application deadline is submitted every December 1st. The Road safety audit criteria includes:

* at least one crash resulting in a fatal or serious injury in the past 10 years

* no project completed in the last 5 years addressing safety concerns

* no previous studies indicating desired countermeasures that are too expensive

* completed application forms with signatures, location description, description of the safety concerns 

and traffic volumes

* selecting sites that are crash data driven

Once the applications are received the applications are reviewed for completeness, safety issues and crash 

data. The information about each location is entered into a spreadsheet and is ranked for the highest safety 

improvement to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on NH Roadways.

This change has allowed NHDOT to plan funding for the year and to ensure the projected selected for the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program has crash data to support the decision to include the project in the 

program.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 65

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $9,365,500 $9,340,114 99.73%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$164,790 $164,790 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$1,150,000 $1,150,000 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $10,680,290 $10,654,904 99.76%

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

The HRRR funds were left over from previous years and will be spent this year. The HRRR funds are not new 

funds for this year and were from a de-obligated project that advertised for construction several years ago.

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

2%

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

2%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 65

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

$459,800

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

$459,800

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

This dollar amount has decreased from last year due to the changes with the FAST ACT requirements of noninfrastructure projects. We currently are using these funds for Road Safety Audits, software, evaluation of 

rumble strips, and updating manuals for the HISP program.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

NHDOT does not transfer funds into or out of the Highway Safety Improvement program.

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

The NHDOT mostly relies on the use of Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The impact to The State of New 

Hampshire and the Transportation Improvement program will result in general uncertainty and will have a 

significant impact to funding the State Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Due to limited State 

Highway Trust Fund revenues, the State of New Hampshire uses Turnpike Toll Credits to meet the match of 

the federal program. As a result, there are limited State dollars to support the federal program and as a 

consequence, the STIP becomes dependent on the availability of federal funds. Any loss of federal funds could 

very well lead to suspension of work and delay of future State and local transportation projects.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) signed in December 2015 provides funding for the 

Highway Safety Improvement program. The FAST Act continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including 

non-state-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to 

improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 65

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

The Road Safety audit ranking spreadsheet provides a data driven analysis of the requested locations. The 

locations with crash data, traffic volumes and speed limits are ranked against each other. The spreadsheet 

shows locations with higher points are better applications/locations for safety improvements. The Road Safety 

Audit program also has a yearly application dealine which allows the program to have a schedule.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 65

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Statewide Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

$20048 $20048 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Keene Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $195388.82 $195388.82 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

14,338 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

District Three Roadside Barrier - cable $164790 $998739.24 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Brookline Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

$278777.84 $278777.84 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,700 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Henniker Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - reassign existing lane use$347 $347 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,000 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide # 

40604

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

$1017224.45 $1017224.45 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Farmington Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

$1765951.43 $1765951.43 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#40922

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

$451169.40 $451169.40 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#40922

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

$451169.40 $451169.40 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#40922

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

$451169.40 $451169.40 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Peterborough Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

"when flashing" warning signmounted

$354200 $354200 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,300 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Ossipee # 29315 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

$33000 $506000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,998 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Claremont 

#25621

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

$33000 $407000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

20,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Tilton #29358 Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

$71500 $99000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

18,210 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 65

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Statewide 

#41338

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

$115500 $995170 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Pelham #29338 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

"when flashing" warning signmounted

$121000 $121000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

LancasterGorham #41204Roadside Barrier - other $1200000 $1200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

CanterburyNorthfieldRoadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

$1500000 $1500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

14,441 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#40803

Roadside Barrier - cable $165000 $1650000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#41269

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

$165000 $1268300 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Derry #24861 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

$181500 $1501500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,600 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Swanzey #40485 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

$27500 $1001000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,500 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#41284

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

$31900 $31900 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Bicycle and 

Pedestrian 

Implementation 

Guide

0 documentation Systemic Pedestrians reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#41418

Roadway Roadway - other $16500 $16500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#40921

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 3 Intersections $11000 $11000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#41280

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $20900 $20900 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Update of HSIP 

manual

0 documentation Systemic Data reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#40913

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

software 0 software Systemic Data reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#41283

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 3 Intersections $93500 $93500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Report and 

Concept plans

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#28534

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

$66000 $66000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 65

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Statewide 

#28534

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

$66000 $66000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#28534

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

$66000 $66000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

#40915

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

$82500 $82500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Swanzey # 15697 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

$3000 $1774450 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Rochester # 

22712

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

$100000 $731002 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 45 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 65

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 138 110 128 90 108 135 95 114 136

Serious Injuries 594 667 528 462 623 489 451 459 477

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.058 0.848 0.980 0.708 0.838 1.046 0.732 0.871 1.009

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.555 5.141 4.041 3.632 4.832 3.790 3.477 3.505 3.540

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

9 9 9 9 9 17 16 13 21

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

39 35 32 43 50 40 37 53 42
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 65

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 65

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

For 2008, 2009 & 2010 the annual serious injury number are numbers NHDOT used in previous reports and do not 

match numbers the Office of Highway Safety reported back in 2008 because in those three years Office of Highway 

Safety was reporting all injury numbers not the serious injury number. Serious injury numbers do match the Office of 

Highway Safety for years 2011-2016 as in their report the 2008, 2009 and 2010 numbers are not listed.

Data sources are prescribed by the regulations:

• Fatalities: NHTSA

• Rate of Fatalities (108 VMT): NHTSA & HPMS

• Serious Injuries: DOS

• Rate of Serious Injuries (108 VMT): DOS & HPMS

• Non Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries: NHTSA & DOS

NHTSA - Fatality data is posted by NHTSA. The source is considered consistent and reliable. Data is available from 2007 allowing for the use of 5-yr 

averages for trend analysis.

HPMS - Traffic volume data is calculated by DOT posted by FHWA. The source is considered consistent and reliable. Data is available from 2007 

allowing for the use of 5-yr averages for trend analysis.

DOS - Serious injury data is provided by DOS. Previously reported values have been inconsistent and duplicated records have been found in the 

data. Data is not available from 2007, therefore 5-yr average values may not be used for trend analysis and more variable yearly values must be

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 65

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

NHTSA - Fatality data is posted by NHTSA. The source is considered consistent and reliable. Data is available 

from 2007 allowing for the use of 5-yr averages for trend analysis.

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

Year 2015

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 -

Interstate

5.71 13.77 0.55 1.33

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

18.26 31.28 1.8 3.08

Rural Minor Arterial 6.85 35.04 0.63 3.23

Rural Minor Collector 11.41 32.54 1.15 3.28

Rural Major Collector 6.85 26.28 1.41 5.42

Rural Local Road or Street 6.85 53.81 1.92 15.07

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

7.99 31.28 0.41 1.61

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

3.42 18.77 0.27 1.46

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

10.27 55.06 0.79 4.22

Urban Minor Arterial 7.99 63.82 0.48 3.81

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 7.99 42.55 0.92 4.88

Urban Local Road or Street 11.41 71.33 1.29 8.04
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 65

Year 2015

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 77.23 293.9 0.78 2.98

County Highway Agency 0 0 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

21.13 102.83 2.55 12.43

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

10.52 97.31 0.86 7.96

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0 0.39 0 0

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

0 0 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0 0 0
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 65

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 65

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 65

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

State Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Other Local

Agency

Private (Other

than Railroad)

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 65

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

State Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Other Local

Agency

Private (Other

than Railroad)

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 65

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

State Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Other Local

Agency

Private (Other

than Railroad)

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 65

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

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 113.2 

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

State Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Other Local

Agency

Private (Other

than Railroad)

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 65

The recommended target for fatalities is an increase of 2.2% per year for an estimated 

5 year average to 113.2 by December 31, 2018 based on the data history. Trend 

Analysis should be used to determine data driven targets for measures dealing with 

Fatalities. Trend analysis produces intuitive results that are not politically sensitive for 

measures dealing with fatalities. NHDOT realizes there has been an increase in 

fatalities over the last several years. The graph shown in section 33 shows the results 

of the trend analysis and the trend lines use the most recent 5 year fatality averages to 

project the trend lines out to 2018. Although the target set is based on the data, 

NHDOT's efforts thru the SHSP is to reduce fatalities on NH roadways and will 

continue to advertise construction projects that will improve the safety on NH 

roadways to reduce fatalities. 

Number of Serious Injuries 499.8 

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

The recommended target for serious injuries is to maintain or slightly increase the 

serious injury 5 year average to 499.8 by December 31, 2018 based on the data 

history. We anticipate a 1.5% annual increase in serious injuries. Goals of maintaining 

current performance should be used for targets dealing with serious injuries. NHDOT 

realizes there has been an increase in serious injuries over the last several years. The 

graph shown in section 33 shows the results of the 5 year average. Although the target 

set is based on the data, NHDOT's efforts thru the SHSP is to reduce serious injuries 

on NH roadways and will continue to advertise construction projects that will improve 

the safety on NH roadways to reduce serious injuries. 

Fatality Rate 0.866 

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

The recommended target for fatality rate is to maintain or increase slightly the 5 year 

average fatality rate to 0.866 by December 31, 2018 based on the data. We anticipate a 

0.014 percent annual increase in the fatality rate. Trend Analysis should be used to 

determine data driven targets for measures dealing with Fatalities. Trend analysis 

produces intuitive results that are not politically sensitive for measures dealing with 

fatalities. NHDOT realizes there has been an increase in fatalities over the last several 

years. The graph shown in section 33 shows the results of the trend analysis and the 

trend lines use the most recent 5 year fatality rate averages to project the trend lines 

out to 2018. Although the target set is based on the data, NHDOT's efforts thru the 

SHSP is to reduce fatalities on NH roadways and will continue to advertise 

construction projects that will improve the safety on NH roadways to reduce the 

fatality rate. 

Serious Injury Rate 3.847 

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

The recommended target for serious injury rate is to maintain the existing performance 

of the existing 5 year average serious injury rate to 3.847 by December 31, 2018 based 
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 65

on the data history. Goals of maintaining current performance should be used for 

targets dealing with serious injury rate. NHDOT realizes there has been an increase in 

serious injury rate over the last several years. The graph shown in section 33 shows the 

results of the 5 year average. Although the target set is based on the data, NHDOT's 

efforts thru the SHSP is to reduce serious injury rate on NH roadways and will 

continue to advertise construction projects that will improve the safety on NH 

roadways to reduce the serious injury rate. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 51.4 

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

The recommended target for the total number of non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries is to maintain the existing performance for an estimates 5 year average to 51.4 

by December 31, 2018 based on data. Trend analysis produces challenging results 

which are heavily weighed by serious injuries. Confidence in the results is further 

diminished by the source of information, which is inconsistent and it is a goal in NH to 

improve reporting for future years. Goals of maintaining current performance should 

be used for targets dealing with serious injuries. The goal is data driven. Trend 

analysis may be an option for analyzing measures dealing with serious injury data in 

the future as the system that produces the data is undergoing significant revision 

(Access Database to VISION). However, alternatives to trend analysis may be in use 

by that time. Although the target set is based on the data, NHDOT's efforts thru the 

SHSP is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on NH roadways and will continue to 

advertise construction projects that will improve the safety on NH roadways to reduce 

the crashes of all types. 

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

Introduction: The data that will be used to determine significant progress (whether or not targets are 

achieved) is prescribed by regulations. The methodology to determine targets are not. Data is collected from 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Highway Performance Monitoring System 

(HPMS) and the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS). 

Trend analysis was used to analyze the data. Trend analysis uses past data and patterns to project future 

outputs. Trend analysis functions correctly when no significant change has occurred in the underlying 

processes that affect the overall metric. Safety gains are driven by policy and budget and because there has 

been no recent significant change to policy or budget trend analysis is appropriate. 

Sources Data is collected from several sources. Yearly values are collected from each source and when 

enough data is available, 5 year averages are created. 5-year averages are valuable for safety analysis because 

the 5 year period generally reduces variability that significantly affects values from year to year and because 

regulators will use 5-year averages to determine significant progress. To calculate 5 individual 5-year averages 

data would need to be available from 2007.

Data sources are prescribed by the regulations: Fatalities: NHTSA, Rate of Fatalities (108 VMT): 

NHTSA & HPMS, Serious Injuries: DOS, Rate of Serious Injuries (108 VMT): DOS & HPMS, Non 

Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries: NHTSA & DOS
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 65

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

targets. 

A Statewide safety target setting workshop was held in January 2017 to discuss the safety data in NH, 

who should be on the Target setting task force, develop a timeline and to ensure every participant understands 

the safety target process and methods. At the workshop 46 participants from FHWA, NHTSA, NHDOT, NH 

Office of Highway Safety, Regional planning staff and Metropolitan Planning Organizations were invited. 

The safety target task force met monthly or bimonthly from January to June to develop the 5 safety targets for 

NH. Those members of the task force include NHDOT, NH Office of Highway Safety, and the representative 

for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations. The results of this task force produced the safety target setting 

recommendations and justifications with graphs.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

In FY2017, NHDOT no longer meets the HRRR Special Rule. The HRRR money spend this year is not new 

funds for NH in FY 2017. Thru final voucher process HRRR monies were de-obligated and the balance will be 

used in FY 2017 in the project District Three #24863.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

18 20 21 22 33 23 23

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

51 51 60 65 57 72 80
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 65

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 65

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

For each HSIP project the Benefit to cost ratio is calculated at the scoping stage to check that the ratio is larger 

than one but preferable larger than 2. 

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

level evaluations.

NHDOT's HSIP program is data driven using crash data and the benefit to cost ratios. This creates a program 

that relies heavily on data and improves locations bases on the severity of crashes and cost effective 

improvements. The program's goal is to reduce fatal and serious injuries on NH roadways by improving safety 

with the proposed improvements.

NHDOT's HSIP program consists of systemic projects. These projects improve safety statewide and include the 

following type of projects: median guardrail, horizontal curve warning sign upgrades, replacing back plates on 

traffic signal heads with retro-reflective tape around the traffic signal heads, installing rumble strips centerline 

and edge line, upgrading cable guardrail to beam guardrail, and replacing guardrail terminal end units to current 

standards.

NHDOT feels these programs have reduced fatalities and serious injuries on NH roadways.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

HSIP Obligations

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

The success of NH's HSIP program is dependent on road safety audit completion with projects that can actually 

move from an audit to an HSIP project. The Road safety audits now are a data driven selection method 

requiring crash data to include a fatal or serious injury. This requirement targets intersection or locations that 

has a safety issue that needs to be addressed, which makes NH roadways safer. NH obligates and advertises 

HSIP projects and is moving the program to a systemic approach. The crash data is required for all HSIP 

projects and a benefit to cost ratio is calculated to allow the project into the HSIP program. If the b/c ratio is 

greater than one then the project is eligible for HSIP funds.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 65

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2015

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure Run-off-road 62.6 259 0.4 2 0 0 0

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 45.4 190.4 0.35 1.47 0 0 0

Intersections Intersections 12.2 121.4 0.09 0.94 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 9 35.2 0.07 0.27 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 1 9.2 0.01 0.07 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 25 63 0.19 0.49 0 0 0

Motorcyclists All 16 93.2 0.12 0.72 0 0 0

Work Zones All 2.6 10 0.02 0.08 0 0 0

Data All 114.6 538 0.88 4.15 0 0 0
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 65

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

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 65

No

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

NH has not conducted any countermeasure evaluations
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 65

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Whitefield #p2953 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway - other 29.00 13.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 36.00 16.00 1.48

statewide #15358 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 4.00 4.00

Derry #13249 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

62.00 114.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 35.00 74.00 154.00 0.78

New London 

#14451A

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

23.00 56.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 2.00 33.00 58.00 19.05

Boscowan 

#13957A

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 0.32

Holderness 

#15309

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

7.00 1.00 8.00 3.61

Epsom #15623 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection signing - add 

basic advance warning

11.00 14.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 14.00 18.00 81.72

Pittsfield #15622 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

13.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 20.00 3.00 1.65

brentwood 

#15619

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

9.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 4.00 25.00 16.00 36.86

Greenland 

#15618

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane26.00 20.00 1.00 7.00 11.00 33.00 32.00 3.02

Boscowan Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

14.00 16.00 6.00 1.00 20.00 17.00 -0.55

HampsteadAtkinson #15663Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane15.00 11.00 1.00 3.00 8.00 19.00 19.00 6.78

Lyme #15695 Rural Minor 

Collector

Speed 

management

Traffic calming feature 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.39

Effingham #16041 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection signing - add 

enhanced advance 

warning (double-up and/or 

oversize)

6.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 11.00 1.00 532.64

Epping #15693 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Through lanes - add 

additional through lane

56.00 49.00 1.00 1.00 18.00 9.00 75.00 59.00 1.16

East Kingston Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

3.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 12.00 7.00 385.19

Keene #20812 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

12.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 14.00 4.00 0.93
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 65

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Swanzey 

#15697A

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

9.00 3.00 9.00 4.00 18.00 7.00 375.83

Concord #16204 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

18.00 4.00 22.00 33.71

Barrington 

#16201

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane12.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 19.00 6.00 0.90

Barnstead 

#16200

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane17.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 23.00 2.00 1.58

Candia #16412 Rural Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

re-assign existing lane use

3.00 12.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 15.00 5.9

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

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

No
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 65

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/19/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2021

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 0 0
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 65

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 65

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

94.44 94.44 87.50 87.50 81.82 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

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

NHDOT has collected all but four of the FDE’s. Those elements are median type, intersection/junction traffic control, Unique interchange identifier and interchange type. All FDE’s will be collected on roads with Functional System 1 

through 7. 

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.

NHDOT has collected all but four of the FDE’s. Those elements are median type, intersection/junction traffic control, Unique interchange identifier and interchange type. All FDE’s will be collected on roads with Functional System 1 through 7. The collection and management of the MIRE FDE’s occurs within the 

NHDOT’s Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance, GIS section and is stored in the roadway data inventory. We use an ArcGIS environment along with an Oracle database. This data is also shared on the NH Granite, which is NH’s statewide GIS clearinghouse. Most elements are collected and updated on 

an annual basis by staff in the Planning and Community Assistance Bureau. Existing collection methodologies include collection by visiting sites and entering data into a laptop. Using aerial imagery and other forms of imagery to locate elements. Nightly scripts to help aggregate the data. We will be looking at 

more modern methods such as data collection with Ipads, Lidar and other technologies.

Median types, intersection/junction traffic control, unique interchange identifier and interchange type will be a medium term (4 to 6 years) collection.

For staff in the GIS section; two people at 100% of their time each. 2 people at 50% of their time each. For staff at the bureau of Traffic: two temporary staff (summer interns) at 100% each. There are no consultant efforts to gather data at this time. NHDOT will continue to 

maintain the MIRE data and fund the collection of the data leveraging existing GIS tools and their current operating budgets.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form A=incapacitating=serious injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual suspected serious injury Yes It is estimated that Vision, the new 

electronic software, will have incorporated 

all towns/larger CRMS crash report by April 

2019, which is the only way to be 

completely statewide MMUCC compatible. 

Yes The Department of Safety put together a 

data dictionary over a decade ago, but it 

will need to be updated with the current 

CRMS form.

Yes

Crash Database suspected serious injury No N/A No N/A No
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 65

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating No Data dictionary needs to be updated as it is 

10 years old.

No It is estimated that Vision, the new 

electronic software, will have incorporated 

all towns/larger CRMS crash report by April 

2019, which is the only way to be 

completely statewide MMUCC compatible. 

No

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

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

New Hampshire Traffic Records Strategic Plan Federal Fiscal Year 2018

July 1, 2017 Page 70

6.2 Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Compliance

New Hampshire’s crash repository is currently designed according to MMUCC V3 guidelines.

New Hampshire will ensure adoption of the definition for “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” from the MMUCC 4th edition by April 15, 2019. These plans include the following:

• Collecting and accurately aggregating MMUCC v4 attribute “Suspected Serious Injury (A)”

• The State’s crash database, data dictionary, and crash report user manual employs the verbatim terminology and definitions for this attribute from the MMUCC v4 standard.

• The State’s crash form employs the verbatim MMUCC v4 “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” attributes

• Ensure the seven serious injury types covered by the attribute are not included in the other attributes listed in the State’s injury status data elements.

(Note: The Department of Safety is updating the crash database to be MMUCC complaint using the Vision software and should be the new electronic reporting system 

statewide, VISION, by 2017.)

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

No

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

2018

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 65

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 65

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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