NEW HAMPSHIRE 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

2021 ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 1 of 49 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence............................................................. 3

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................24

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................24

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................26

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................31

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................31

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................39

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................40

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................40

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................41

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................42

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................45

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................48

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................49
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 49

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. 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.”
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 49

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. Infrastructure improvement 

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 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 a 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) ensures that this approach is maintained. NH annually tracks and 

reports performance measures including the numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries. 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 the national 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 (see nhdtz.com). The 

initiative recognizes that even one traffic death is unacceptable and sets the aggressive goal of reducing 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 implement 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%. 

Maine and Vermont share this target, and to that end Maine DOT and VTrans have formed a tristate 

collaborative partnership with NHDOT to more effectively reach the collective regional goal. NHDOT has also 

incorporated the reduction of fatalities into our Balanced Scorecard, representing one of the twelve Strategic 

Objectives of the NHDOT. 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 identifying safety problems and evaluating countermeasures. NHDOT has implemented the 

guidelines of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), part D, in the selection and evaluation of safety 

improvements, wherever applicable. MAP21 and the subsequent FAST ACT have continued 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 the recent migration from the former Crash Management System (CRMS) to the 

current crash and citation database known by the moniker VISION, 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 findings 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. The States are required to define a clear linkage between the behavioral NHTSAfunded Highway Safety Program and the FHWA-funded HSIP via the State's SHSP. The 2012 version (2nd 

edition) of the NH SHSP identified nine critical emphasis areas (CEA) to be addressed by safety stakeholders 

in NH, listed below. In 2014, the Education and Public Outreach committee was created thus forming the tenth 

CEA. This committee has developed documentation that states the challenge, primary focus, and goals for this 

new emphasis area.

The ten critical emphasis areas include Distracted Driving, Impaired Driving, Speeding, Vehicle Occupant 

Protection, Teen Traffic Safety, Older Drivers, Vulnerable Roadway Users, Comprehensive Safety Data 

Improvement, Crash Locations, and Education and Public Outreach. The 4 E's of safety (education, 

enforcement, engineering, and emergency medical services) should be considered in the selection and 

development of HSIP projects, however the primary focus of the HSIP is to enhance highway safety via 

infrastructure improvements. Crash types of special interest have been identified in the crash locations CEA.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 49

The NH SHSP is now in its third edition and will be updated in 2021. 23 USC 148(a)(4) provides a sample 

listing of eligible highway safety improvement project types; however, it is important to note that only datadriven 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 prioritized. 23 USC 148(e)(2) makes clear that other federal-aid funds are eligible to 

support and leverage the safety program.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 49

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 NH HSIP is governed by a committee chaired by the NHDOT Assistant Director of Project Development 

and includes representatives from the NHDOT Bureaus of Highway Design, Traffic, Highway Maintenance, and 

Planning; RPCs, MPOs, municipalities, and the FHWA NH Division. The monthly committee meetings review 

the selection and progress of HSIP projects and initiatives, and program finances. Regional Planning 

Commissions are encouraged to incorporate the HSIP principle of data driven project selection in their 

Transportation Improvement Plan development. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Design

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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. Traffic data are not available for the majority of rural collector 

or rural and urban local roads (functional class 8, 9, and 19), 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 functional classes in network screening to account for the lower reliability of this estimated volume data. 

The State is working to improve volume data on the roads for which it is currently lacking.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 49

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Administration

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The State’s HSIP is centrally administered. The NHDOT selects candidates for improvement using historical 

network screening results which are then corroborated with recent crash data. While this project identification 

and selection method is more 'naive' and less rigorous than desired, it is nevertheless data-driven. The 

candidate locations are then disseminated to the NHDOT's safety partners via the HSIP Committee for review 

and comment. For all the candidate locations, the Committee will consider the scope and cost of the 

anticipated improvements in relation to the overall program funding constraints, and the improvement's 

expected benefit/cost ratio. Candidates not selected into the HSIP may be recommended for consideration via 

other funding programs. 

The NHDOT Safety Section continues to work with the assistance of the FHWA NH Division to regain and 

sustain the necessary tools and expertise for a rigorous data-driven safety program. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

In addition to the selection of project candidates via 'naive' evaluation of screening results, other project 

candidates are identified via the Road Safety Audit program for which the regional planning commissions serve 

as liaisons between the NHDOT and communities. NHDOT also coordinates annually with the LTAP to 

publicize the RSA program to the communities.

Describe coordination with external partners.

The HSIP committee meets monthly with internal and external partners. The NHDOT Bureau of Highway 

Design - Safety Section prepares and disseminates (by email) meeting agendas and notes, program financial 

data, and relevant project reports. This information is reviewed and discussed at the monthly meetings, with 

key items voted upon when necessary as dictated by the NHDOT HSIP Policy.

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

elaborate. 

The FAST Act disqualified the use of HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects. The NHDOT continues to work 

with our safety partners via the SHSP to advance non-infrastructure safety initiatives utilizing funding from 

NHTSA or other public or private sources. NHDOT has also leveraged FHWA Technology Deployment Funds 

to create and air safety-related public service announcements on statewide radio stations.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 49

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Right Angle Crash

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Shoulder Improvement

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-EPDO

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 49

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation

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

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 49

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

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• 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? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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).
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 49

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 49

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• 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? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 49

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 49

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 49

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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?

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?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 49

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal crashes only

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 49

• 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? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-EPDO

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-Site Subtype
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 49

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO 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?

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?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume

• Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 49

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

• 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

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• 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? 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 49

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

• 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

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume • Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 49

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

• 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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• 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? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-Run off the Road
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 49

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

While the NHDOT doesn't yet have a defined funding allocation to systemic projects, in recent years our 

investment in these types of improvements has been approximately 50%.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 49

NHDOT has been following technological developments cooperatively with regional DOTs, but has not begun 

to implement specific infrastructure improvements to support connected vehicles and emerging ITS 

technologies.

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, Part D, to support our project selection and evaluation of 

improvement alternatives. Crash modification factors are selected from the HSM and the CMF Clearinghouse 

website. The NHDOT strives to achieve an initial benefit-cost ratio of at least 2.0 for new projects to ensure 

that as the projects' scopes and costs evolve through the project development process, a favorable b-c ratio 

(greater than 1.0) can be sustained.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 49

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $10,357,601 $10,355,545 99.98%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

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))

$165,000 $165,000 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $10,522,601 $10,520,545 99.98%

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

safety projects?

$0

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

$0

Local safety projects are eligible for consideration for HSIP funding, but no specific program funding level has 

been established. Local projects are commonly identified via road safety audits. There are no tribal roads in 

NH.

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

$56,650

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

$56,218

Road safety audits and related engineering support.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 49

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

Historically, NHDOT has neither transferred funds into or out of the HSIP. However, in FY 2021 NHDOT 

transferred accrued unexpended obligational authority in the amount of $4,792,769 out of HSIP. This will be 

reported in the 2021 HSIP Annual Report.

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

the future.

The State of New Hampshire Highway Fund, comprised of revenue from motor vehicle fuel taxes and other 

fees, is devoted to State-funded highway operations and maintenance. Thus New Hampshire's Federal 

highway funding, rather than being matched by State funds, is matched by Federal funds in the form of 

turnpike toll credits. The result is that highway safety funding in New Hampshire is entirely reliant on Federal 

funding. Any interruption of Federal highway funding would lead to a cessation of New Hampshire's highway 

safety program. Also, this lack of State highway funds prevents the State of New Hampshire from being able to 

leverage the limited Federal safety funds by matching them with State funds, which could support an expanded 

safety program.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

The NHDOT road safety audit application and selection process provides a predictable and objective means 

for communities to have their priority safety concerns addressed in a timely manner. Furthermore, the use of 

Highway Safety Manual guidance provides a data driven process for selecting and evaluating 

countermeasures. The NHDOT continues to pursue improvements to our safety analysis tools and capabilities, 

and intends to procure and implement safety management software in FY 2022.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 49

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

BARNSTEAD -

14121E, Modify 

horizontal & 

vertical Alignments

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

realignment

1 Intersections $2128 $2128 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,841 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

BOW - 42724, I-89 

SB Exit 1 off ramp 

sign improvements

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

1 Ramps $22000 $22000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate19,224 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Ramp 

Interchange

Reduce 

crashes at 

ramp 

interchange

CLAREMONT -

25621, Access 

Mgmt -

Consolidate Drives

Access 

management

Change in 

access - close or 

restrict existing 

access

1 Intersections $117849 $117849 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 20,219 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

COLEBROOKDIXVILLE - 41783, 

Guardrail upgrades 

along Tier 2 roads

Roadside Barrier- metal 12000 LF of guardrail 

replacements

$36214 $36214 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes -

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

CONWAY - 42522, 

US 302 and East 

Conway Rd 

intersection safety 

improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther12,884 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

DERRY - 24861, 

Replace existing 

flashing beacon 

with traffic signals 

and construct Left 

Turn Lanes

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

1 Intersections $11000 $11000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,524 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

DISTRICT 1 -

43130, Guardrail 

upgrades along 

Tier 2 & 3 roads in 

District 1

Roadside Barrier- metal 61 Miles $22000 $22000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes -

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

DISTRICT 2 -

43132, Guardrail 

upgrades along 

Tier 2 & 3 roads in 

District 2

Roadside Barrier- metal 60 Miles $22000 $22000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes -

Guardrails 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

& terminal 

units

DURHAM - 42523, 

US 4 and Madbury 

Rd intersection 

safety 

improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,007 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

LYME-ORFORDPIERMONTHAVERHILL - 

41913, Guardrail 

upgrades along 

Tier 2 & 3 

roadways

Roadside Barrier- metal 18500 LF of guardrail 

replacements

$1548711 $1548711 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

NEWPORTCROYDONGRANT - 41914, 

Guardrail upgrades

Roadside Barrier- metal 18000 LF of guardrail 

replacements

$38500 $38500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

NORTHFIELDASHLAND - 

43134, I-93 

Durable pavement 

marking upgrades

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

37.5 Miles $836059 $836059 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialInterstate1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

lane 

departures - 

Wet 

reflective 

pavement 

markings

PELHAMCHESTERFIELD - 

29338, Install 

Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

Systems (ICWS)

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

System (ICWS)

2 Intersections $398165 $398165 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

PETERBOROUGH 

- 15698, NH 123 

intersection safety 

improvements, 

install ICWS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

System (ICWS)

1 Intersections $144550 $144550 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther11,607 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

ROCHESTER -

41849, Install 

TWLTL

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

0.5 Miles $22740 $22740 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,867 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

lane 

departures - 

TWLTL

ROCHESTERFARMINGTON - Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

0.5 Miles $929330 $929330 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 16,453 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

lane 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

42243, Install 

TWLTL

departures -

TWLTL

SALEMMANCHESTER - 

14634H, I-93 

durable pavement 

marking upgrades

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

37 Miles $1114669 $1114669 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate1 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

lane 

departures - 

Wet 

reflective 

pavement 

markings

SWANZEY -

40485, Construct 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersections $352066 $352066 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,664 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

STATEWIDE -

40842, Install 

rumble strips

Roadway Rumble strips –

other

70 Miles $71500 $71500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway & 

lane 

departures

STATEWIDE -

41897, Guardrail 

upgrades along 

Tier 2 & 3 

roadways in 

Districts 1 & 3

Roadside Barrier- metal 11350 LF of guardrail 

replacements

$1576528 $1576528 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

STATEWIDE -

42953, Curve 

warning sign 

improvements

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

133 Miles $551864 $551864 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

STATEWIDE -

43131, Guardrail 

upgrades along 

Tier 2 & 3 roads in 

Districts 2 & 4

Roadside Barrier- metal 67 Miles $22000 $22000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

STATEWIDE -

40803, Guardrail 

upgrades along 

Tier 2 roads

Roadside Barrier- metal 17700 LF of guardrail 

replacements

$26213 $26213 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

STATEWIDE -

40841, Evaluate & 

modify NHDOT 

rumble strip policy

Miscellaneous Data collection 1 Rumble strip policy 

review/update

$1913 $1913 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewide Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway & 

lane 

departures
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

STATEWIDE -

41269, Guardrail 

upgrades

Roadside Barrier- metal 13500 LF of guardrail 

replacements

$117362 $117362 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

STATEWIDE -

41338, Upgrade 

signal heads with 

retroflective 

backpates

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

backplates with 

retroreflective 

borders

192 Intersections $35383 $35383 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

STATEWIDE -

41899, Guardrail 

upgrades along 

Tier 2 & 3 roads in 

Districts 4 & 5

Roadside Barrier- metal 10350 LF of guardrail 

replacements/upgrades

$989107 $989107 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails 

& terminal 

units

STATEWIDE -

41909, Replace 

cable guardrail in 

Districts 1 & 3

Roadside Barrier- metal 11150 LF of guardrail 

replacements

$1051488 $1051488 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes - 

Cable 

Guardrails

STATEWIDE -

41931, Road 

safety audits and 

support for 2019-

2020

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

0 Support for road safety 

audits

$27500 $27500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 Varies Statewide To perform 

Road Safety 

Audits

Road Safety 

Audits

STATEWIDE -

42241, Road 

safety audits & 

safety engineering 

support by NHDOT

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

0 NHDOT engineering 

support

$60025 $60025 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 Varies Statewide To perform 

Road Safety 

Audit & 

engineering 

support

Road Safety 

Audits

STATEWIDE -

42996, TSMO ITS 

Technologies

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Locations vary & are 

determined by need

$330000 $330000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Education & 

Enforcement

Education

FARMINGTON -

42569, RSA at NH 

11 & Central St 

intersection

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $35726 $35726 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 11,060 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

BARRINGTON -

42570, RSA at NH 

125 & Beauty Hill 

Rd intersection

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $32929 $32929 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther18,845 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

ROCHESTER -

42571, RSA at Old 

Dover Rd & 

Tebbetts Rd 

intersection

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $28477 $28477 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 4,342 35 City & State 

owned

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

The AADT and Speed Limits for Statewide projects will vary. The number 1 was entered to represent "varies".
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 49

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 108 135 95 114 136 102 147 101 104

Serious Injuries 623 489 451 459 477 410 451 485 504

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.838 1.046 0.732 0.871 1.009 0.746 1.067 0.729 0.869

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.832 3.790 3.477 3.505 3.540 2.997 3.275 3.501 4.211

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

9 17 16 13 21 14 12 9 17

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

50 40 37 53 42 40 27 28 13
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

ownership.

Year 2020

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

5.8 0.53

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.4 0.29

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

18 1.65

Rural Minor Arterial 10.4 0.92

Rural Minor Collector 8.4 1.16

Rural Major Collector 8.8 1.05
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 49

F

C

un

la

ctional 

ssification

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 Local Road or 

Street

10 2.67

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

6.8 0.34

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

12 0.77

Urban Minor Arterial 9.2 0.57

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 4.6 0.55

Urban Local Road or 

Street

12.2 1.24

Rural Private 0 0

Urban Private 0 0
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 49

Year 2016

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

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

other 0.35 2.36 0 0.02

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:117.8

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 49

The 2020 five-year average is 117.8 fatalities. Fatalities in the last decade have shown wide variation over a 

one to two-year cycle, with the number of 2020 fatalities being among the lowest values for the decade. The 

slight rising trend computed by the data is not acceptable as a target for the NHDOT as it would be contrary to 

the core objective of the state's Driving Toward Zero initiative, thus a level trend has been selected as the 

target. A 2022 target of 117.8 fatalities (i.e., maintaining the 2020 five-year average) has been adopted. The 

target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the increasing reliance on the implementation of proven systematic 

roadway departure countermeasures to address this critical emphasis area, and the improved safety 

performance that will result.

Number of Serious Injuries:465.4

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

2020 saw the highest number of serious injuries, despite reduced traffic volumes caused by the COVID 

pandemic. Nevertheless, the computed trend line predicts declining crashes. Closer inspection of the trend line 

and computed target value of 439.4 revealed that meeting this target would require far superior safety 

performance in 2021 and 2022 than has been observed in the past decade. Therefore, a more achievable 

target of 465.4, equal to the 2020 five-year average, has been adopted. This more sustainable target would still 

require safety performance better than recent years. The target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the 

increasing reliance on the implementation of proven systematic roadway departure countermeasures to 

address this critical emphasis area, and the improved safety performance that will result.

Fatality Rate:0.874

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

The 2020 five-year average fatality rate is 0.883 per HMVMT. Fatalities in the last decade have shown wide 

variation over a one to two-year cycle, with the 2020 fatality rate being near the mean for the decade. The 

annual fatalities rates and the five-year averages exhibit similar patterns seen in the numbers of fatalities, with 

proportionally large annual variations. The computed trend line predicts a slowly falling trend to 2022. This 

falling trend is favorable and achievable based on recent performance, thus a target of 0.874 fatalities per 

HMVMT has been adopted. The target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the increasing reliance on the 

implementation of proven systematic roadway departure countermeasures to address this critical emphasis 

area, and the improved safety performance that will result.

Serious Injury Rate:3.506

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

Similar to serious injury numbers reported above, 2020 saw a sharp peak in serious injury rate due to the 

combined influences of increased serious injuries despite the substantially reduced traffic volumes. 

Nevertheless, the computed trend line predicts declining crashes. Closer inspection of the trend line and 

computed target value of 3.206 revealed that meeting this target would require far superior safety performance 

in 2021 and 2022 than has been observed in the past decade. Therefore, a more achievable target of 3.506, 

equal to the 2020 five-year average, has been adopted. This more sustainable target would still require safety 

performance better than recent years. The target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the increasing reliance on 

the implementation of proven systematic roadway departure countermeasures to address this critical emphasis 

area, and the improved safety performance that will result.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:38.0

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

Trend analysis predicts a strongly declining trend and a 2022 target value of 38.0 non-motorized fatalities and 

serious injuries. This target value is hereby adopted as it would be consistent with the strongly favorable 
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 49

performance trend since 2015 and would represent a realistic performance level consistent with the desired 

trend. The target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the planned expanded use of systematic pedestrian 

crossing improvements to address this critical emphasis area, and the improved safety performance that will 

result.

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

safety performance targets. 

Building upon the successful target-setting practices that had been developed and documented in prior years, 

the NHDOT began the annual target-setting with a meeting among the safety stakeholders. A meeting among 

the principal participants in the target setting, including the NHDOT, the NH Office of Highway Safety 

(NHOHS), a representative MPO, and the FHWA NH Division was held to review and confirm the target-setting 

process to be undertaken. Using data provided by the NH Department of Safety (NHDOS) and Division of 

Motor Vehicles, the NHDOT compiled the data, computed draft targets, modified the targets as appropriate to 

consider the influence of potential external factors, and composed narratives to document and defend the 

selected targets. These draft targets were reviewed with the NHDOT HSIP Committee, the NHOHS, NHDOT 

and NHDOS leadership, and the NH municipal planning organizations. The accepted targets for the three 

common safety performance measures (number of fatalities, rate of fatalities, number of serious injuries) were 

published by the NHOHS in their annual Highway Safety Plan.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 118.8 118.0

Number of Serious Injuries 448.0 465.4

Fatality Rate 0.885 0.884

Serious Injury Rate 3.269 3.505

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

51.6 44.6

Annual fatal crash performance over the last decade has exhibited wide relative variation on a one or two-year 

cycle, with no clear causative factors, either favorable or unfavorable, having been identified by the NHDOT or 

the NH Office of Highway Safety. The most common contributing factors in NH's fatalities are behavioral 

including impairment, speeding, and distraction or inattention, combined with a relatively low usage rate of 

passenger restraints. Because rural roadway departure (RwD) crashes are over-represented in NH's fatal 

crashes, and to counter these common contributing behavioral factors, NHDOT coordinates closely with the 

NH Office of Highway Safety as they apply NHTSA funds toward addressing these behavioral risk factors. In 

addition, NHDOT's HSIP has been trending toward a greater emphasis on systemic and systematic 

improvements, as recommended by the Every Day Counts 5FORRRwD initiative, including guardrail 

modernization and curve warning sign improvements, and soon to include a renewed deployment of rumble 

strips and the installation of durable and wet-reflective pavement markings. All of these are proven 

countermeasures for reducing RwD crashes.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 49

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

33 23 23 20 30 25 24

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

57 72 80 80 67 67 72
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 49

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Project locations are reviewed by 'naïve' evaluation of before/after safety performance.

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 to select candidate locations for improvement and 

CMFs to select and evaluate countermeasures based on their benefit/cost ratios. This creates a program that 

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

improvements. NHDOT's HSIP program also includes and focuses heavily on systematic projects. These 

projects improve safety statewide and have included several types of projects including the following: 

construction of median barriers on divided highways, installation of horizontal curve warning signs to reduce 

roadway departure crashes on curves (and to comply with MUTCD), installation of retroreflective backplates on 

traffic signals, installation of centerline and shoulder rumble strips, replacement of deficient guardrail and 

terminal units to meet current safety standards, and installation of durable pavement markings on divided 

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

these are all proven safety countermeasures, but this has not been corroborated with program or system-wide 

data analysis.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Organizational change

• Policy change

The NHDOT aims to continue to expand our RSA program by encouraging communities, via the RPCs and 

MPOs, to apply for RSAs. The RSA candidates are screened according to crash history, and the program has 

delivered worthwhile projects. The NHDOT also continues to deliver systemic projects with a recent emphasis 

on installing rumble strips, improving deficient guardrail elements, installing MUTCD-compliant curve warning 

signs, and enhancing signalized intersections with retroreflective backplates. A planned initiative will continue 

system signal improvements by installing flashing yellow arrows to control

permissive left turns currently operating under a green ball signal indication. Both the flashing yellow arrows 

and retroreflective backplates initiatives are planned to be expanded to municipal roadways as well to improve 

our inclusion of local roads in our HSIP.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 49

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period.

In response to common noise complaints related to rumble strips, but in recognition of their proven safety 

value, NHDOT has updated our guidelines to incorporate 'sinusoidal' rumble strips in our standard practice. 

Using guidance from other State DOTs, the NHDOT was able to select a 'sinusoidal' design that provides the 

safety benefit proven to reduce lane departure crashes while reducing their undesirable exterior noise.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

The NHDOT does not presently have the resources to conduct rigorous evaluations of countermeasure 

effectiveness; however, the NHDOT is an active participant in the project advisory committee of the FHWA 

pooled fund study for the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements, which provides valuable data 

regarding the effectiveness of proven safety countermeasures to support program decisions.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 49

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Pittsfield -

24842, NH 28 

& NH107, 

Upgrades to 

existing signal 

system

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

6.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 10.00 7.00

Gilford -

16207, NH 

11A/Belknap 

Mountain 

Rd/School 

House Hill Rd, 

Modify vertical 

alignment

Urban Major 

Collector

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or 

elevation 

change

10.00 8.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 19.00 11.00

Rindge -

16210, US 202 

& Forristall Rd, 

Construct 

offset right turn 

lane

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 3.00

Loudon -

24941, NH 

106/Staniels 

Rd/Josiah 

Bartlett Rd, 

Install traffic 

signal & turn 

lanes

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

9.00 19.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 17.00 20.00

Barrington -

16178, US 202 

& NH 9, 

Convert 

existing Yintersection to 

a T 

configuration

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

realignment

12.00 4.00 3.00 15.00 4.00

Lee - 15692, 

US 4 & NH 

125, Replace 

existing traffic 

circle with 2 

lane 

roundabout

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

119.00 283.00 1.00 4.00 28.00 39.00 148.00 326.00
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 49

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Lebanon -

29362, NH 

10/Oak Ridge 

Rd/Gould Rd, 

Install 

Pedestrian 

beacon

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00

Rochester -

27873, US 202 

& Estes Rd, 

Building 

demolition for 

sightline 

improvement

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Removal of fixed 

objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 3.00

Swanzey -

15697, NH 

12/Lake 

St/Swanzey 

Factory Rd, 

Install 

Roundabout

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

12.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 13.00 8.00

Keene -

26765, NH 9 & 

Base Hill Rd, 

Install 

Roundabout

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

10.00 21.00 8.00 2.00 18.00 23.00

Derry - 15690, 

NH 28, Install 

Left Turn lane 

and traffic 

signals

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

6.00 10.00 1.00 12.00 5.00 19.00 15.00

Seabrook -

16444, US 1, 

Widening to 

provide 

additional SB 

thru lane

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

20.00 51.00 7.00 7.00 27.00 58.00

Lancaster -

16208, US 2 & 

US 3, Install 

Roundabout

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

1.00 22.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 23.00

Milford -

13692B, NH 

101, Install 

TWLTL

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

22.00 23.00 8.00 4.00 30.00 27.00
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 49

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Meredith -

16470, NH 104 

& Meredith 

Center Rd, 

Construct 

offset right turn 

lane

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

6.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 8.00 5.00

Farmington -

16212, NH 11, 

Install TWLTL

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

4.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 9.00

Belmont -

16203, NH 106 

& Seavey Rd, 

Construct turn 

lanes

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Rochester -

22712, 

Salmon Falls 

Rd, Modify 

Horizontal 

alignment of 2 

curves

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

6.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 6.00
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 49

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?

 2022

The 2022 to 2026 Strategic Highway Safety Plan is under development in the summer of 2021.

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 49

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

82 53

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

5 5

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

5

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 49

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

5

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.00 97.39 88.13 88.13 82.73 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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 completed data collection for all but four of the Fundamental Data Elements. Those remaining elements are median type, intersection/junction traffic control, unique interchange identifier, and interchange type. All FDEs will 

be collected on roads with function class 1 through 7. Data collection is nearing completion for median types on State roads and consistent progress has been made on non-State roads, while the data collection is in its early stages for the 

remaining incomplete FDEs. Much of the data for the incomplete FDEs is available, but in formats incompatible with GIS. The collection and management of the MIRE FDEs 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 'NH GRANIT', 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, or using aerial imagery and 

other forms of imagery to locate elements. Nightly scripts are run to aggregate the data. We continue to investigate the use of more modern methods of data collection such as with tablets and mobile devices, via Lidar, and with other 

emerging technologies. All data collection and entry is currently done by NHDOT staff. The Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance assigns one staff person at approximately 50% of their time plus a supervisor. NHDOT will 

continue to maintain the MIRE data and fund the collection of the data leveraging existing GIS tools and within the limitations of our resources.

NHDOT will benefit from FHWA technical assistance in FY 2021 and 2022 to enable the completion of the incomplete MIRE FDEs prior to the 2026 deadline.
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

HSIP_Report_Q_44.xlsx

Compliance Assessment:
2021 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 49

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

Systemic safety improvement: means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high 

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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