Maine

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

 

Prepared by: ME

 
ii 

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.”
iii 

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 41

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 41

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 44

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 49

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 49

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 64

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................67

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 69

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 74

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 79

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 87
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

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

performance. Before and After crash results comparsion have consistently shown performance 

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

opportunities for enhancement and for improved alignment for the state's SHSP. 

Supplemental safety projects that are more systemic in nature, like centerline rumble strips are 

also funded.
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

2 

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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

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

roadway data for Local roads and so is able to evaluate all locations within the state based on 

similar crash performance comparisons. Local requests are also receieved based on crash 

concerns and are reviewed as part of the candidate screening process.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Executive, Planning (including local roads and bike/ped), Traffic Engineering, Project 

Development, all play a part in safety planning. MaineDOT continues to enhance its Work Plan 

approach to integrate safety into the planning process, looking to get safety in the planning 

thought process early on to consider not just stand-alone safety needs, but also opportunities 

that would complement upcoming paving and construction projects. Safety Office is able to 

review corridor project candidates in advance to identify safety needs that might align with 

other work.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period. 

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Continuing adjustments to improve approach.

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

None

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Median Barriers 

funded through MaineDOT 

capital pr
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-MaineDOT's Highway 

Corridor Priority classifications

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

 

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

 

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Cost Effectiveness 1

 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Usually work with MaineDOT's Local Roads unit

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

 

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-These projects are normally coordinated through MaineDOT's Bike/Ped coordinator
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

 

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost prioritization

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Other 

 

Program: Other-Median Barriers funded through MaineDOT capital pr

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Divided limited access 

Highways - mostly interstate

Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Systemic approach for all narrow medians - less than 50' wide

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Other-Only one pending median section remains for treatment - to be completed in 2014

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

10

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-Wrong Way Driver interstate 

ramp improvements, rapid flashing beacons for 

ped crossings, 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-Have HSM calibration work completed for sections, now working on intersections; work 

underway on prioritizing additional centerline rumble strip needs.

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

Coordination between MaineDOT project planning and safety continue to deepen, as we look to 

coordinate construction and paving projects with appropriate safety mitigation needs.
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 9673563 95 % 10988274.6 92 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 279578.33 2 %

HRRR Special Rule 0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

0 0 % 0 0 %

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

0 0 % 0 0 %

State and Local Funds 0 0 % 0 0 %
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Other Safe Routes to 

School

461105.4 5 % 639264.34 5 %

Totals 10134668.4 100% 11907117.27 100%

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

0 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

0 %

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

5 %

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

5 %

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

period?

0 %

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

period? 

0 %

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future. 

No impediments seen. Safety Office continues to work with Exec., Planning and Regions to 

improve safety planning corrdination/integration.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Continue to focus more on Lane Departure needs. Maine experiences 70% of fatalities in this 

category. Looking to achieve a better funding balance that is reflective of SHSP priorities - 

median cable barrier needs already met; increasing installations on centerline rumble strips.
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total Cost Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

12757 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

577016 654463 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

1054

2

50 State aid Intersecti

ons

16336.

1

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numbe

rs

35000 70000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

NA 0 0 Data

17057.

3

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

0 35303 39225 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

varied 0 0 Lane 

Departure

17057.

5

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

0 36120 40133 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

varied 0 0 Lane 

Departure

17237 Intersection traffic control 

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

0 5867.69 6519.66 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

5650 25 State aid Intersecti

ons
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

17239 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 58500 140000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1850

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

17241 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 697923.0

7

806245.8

3

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

6161 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

17258 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 93406 1148901 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

1764 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

17259 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 131222 522972 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7989 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

17261 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 225404 1336902 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

2067 35 State aid Intersecti

ons

17294.

1

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numbe

rs

12752.62 15940.77 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Varied 0 0 Varied Lane 

Departure

17334 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

0 25835 115000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

1048

0

25 State aid Intersecti

ons
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

nt

17516.

03

Roadway Roadway - other 0 123092 136769 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

19000 Roadside Roadside - other 1 Miles 65642 72936 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 State aid Lane 

Departure

19001 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 2700 3000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1366

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

19007 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal 

timing - signal 

coordination

3 Miles 99000 878503 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

19009 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 24579.14 46703.87 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2176

8

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

19010 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 71100 79000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1108

1

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

19011 Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

3 Miles 12366 13741 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Lane 

Departure
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

Agency

19012 Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

0 9446 10496 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

19016 Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

2 Miles 125700 139666 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

0 0 State aid Lane 

Departure

19021 Interchange design 

Interchange design - other

0 103647 115163 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

0 0 Intersecti

ons

19036 Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

2 Miles 4036 63239 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State aid Lane 

Departure

19070 Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

0 1778322.

78

14544788

.85

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

0 0 Lane 

Departure

19085 Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

0 13691 16712 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1863

0 

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

19119 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replaceme

0 366458.8

4 

469291.0

6 

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

nt Other

19431 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replaceme

nt

0 33642.93 145835.3

1 

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1125

0 

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

19435 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replaceme

nt

1 

Numbe

rs

32385.6 216992.5

1 

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

4419 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

19515 Roadside Barrier- metal 0 2700 92276 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

20442.

1

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Install sidewalk

1 

Numbe

rs

10000 20000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

20541.

14

Work Zone 0 31500 35000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Varied 0 0 Work 

Zones
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 171 169 159 155 153

Number of serious injuries 931.6 875.6 852 852.8 851.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.16 1.15 1.09 1.07 1.06

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.3 5.95 5.85 5.9 5.9

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

5.6 47.2 0.25 2.15

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

25.4 108.2 1.42 6.06

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

23.6 111.8 1.39 6.58

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

13 63.8 1.65 8.09

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

30.8 153.2 1.45 7.2

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

26.6 125.6 1.87 8.81

URBAN PRINCIPAL 2.4 18 0.28 2.08
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0.4 6.6 0.26 4.28

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

5.4 54 0.77 7.74

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

6.4 76.2 0.7 8.31

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

6.8 54.6 0.75 6

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

3.8 29.8 0.89 6.97
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT) 

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 83.2 487.8 1.01 5.94

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 30.2 152.6 1.69 8.53

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

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 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 2.8 18.2 0.22 1.43

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
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

STATE AID 33.8 187.6 1.27 7.03
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate. 

Overall fatality trends have been positive and continue to improve. Maine has agressively worked with 

Police agencies to make sure there has been complete reporting submissions. We have identified limited 

departments that have had issues with successful electronic report exporting.

Maine's lead crash concern is lane departure. While overall numbers are trending down, it still 

represents 70% of the state's fatalities. 

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.174 0.178 0.16 0.152 0.156

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.5 0.468 0.476 0.498 0.514

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

0.674 0.644 0.636 0.65 0.67

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

Methodology: 

Queried in Maine's Crash Reporting database all crashes resulting in fatality or serious injury when 

fatality occurred to Crash Report Person Type: Driver, Driver Owner or Pedestrian over 65 years old. 

Using those crash ID's, summed all resulting crash serious injuries by year. Obtained fatal numbers 

through Maine's FARS analyst.

Developed rates based on Section 148: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance; 

Attachment 2: Number of People 65 Years of Age and Older (Per 1,000 Total Population) 

Maine population #s .
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

Yes

If yes, describe the approach to include respective strategies to address the increase in those rates in 

the State SHSP.

<p style="text-align: left;">Main focus will be working with Maine's Mature Driver Safety working group 

that is looking to enhance public outreach to mature drivers, family members, clinicians and other 

support services to emphasize importance of driver assessments and provide guidance on appropriate 

driver interventions when demonstrated skills are diminishing. Mature Drivers is a focus area 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

in Maine's current SHSP and has been updated in the upcoming 2014 SHSP edition. </p>
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program? 

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Maine's new SHSP, due out in 60 days now also references serious injuries

Other: Other-MaineDOT's safety office now reports to MaineDOT's Employee Development Office

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

No significant changes in Maine's program. Here are some items currently underway:

We are in the process of updating the State's SHSP that is more closely coordinated with HSP and other 

safety efforts.

Expanding installation of centerline rumble strips.

Coodination of planning (Paving and construction work) with safety needs continues to see process 

improvement.
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

SHSP Emphasis Areas

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Lane Departure Head On + 

Went Off 

Road

107.8 446.6 0.75 3.1 0 0 0

Intersections All 17.8 207.8 0.12 1.44 0 0 0

Pedestrians 10.8 49.8 0.08 0.35 0 0 0

Bicyclists 0.8 4.4 0.01 0.03 0 0 0

Older Drivers 37.2 174.4 0.26 1.21 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 19 130 0.13 0.9 0 0 0
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2013

HSIP Sub-program Types Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Other-Median Barriers 

funded through MaineDOT 

capital pr

Cross 

median

0.2 0 0.01 0 0 0 0

Crash Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Rumble Strips Head on 1 2.6 1.18 3.08 0 0 0
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

84

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

Maine has provided median cable barrier installations on almost all narrow (<50-60' wide) 

interstate medians. MaineDOT does plan to automate that feature in its inventory to be enable 

easier monitoring of performance in the future. Only one short section remains to be installed 

on I-195 - Saco, expected to be completed later in 2014. No fatalities have occured on sections 

where median cable barrier has been installed, but incidental barrier/guardrail hits have 

increased. Maine experienced 4 interstate median crossover fatalities from 2005 to 2009, none 

since

Centerline Rumble strips were added to three selected corridors in late 2013, two more are 

planned for later 2014 (which will bring Maine's total to 10 sections of non-interstate 

Centerline Rumble Strip installations), and new candidates are being considered for 2015-

17. No head-on fatalities have occurred on corridors where installed.
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

85

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

See 

attached
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

86

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Systemic 

Treatments

Completed Safety Projects CY 2010.xlsx
2014 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

87

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

Roadway Functional Classification means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into 

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety 

data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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.