Maine

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 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.............................................................................................................40

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 40

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

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

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................91
iv
2013 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.
2013 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. 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. 

Design
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Executive, Planning, Traffic Engineering, Project Development all play a part in safety planning. 

MaineDOT is currently enhancing 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.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 

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

the last reporting period.
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Ongoing tweaks made to enhance HSIP 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 

addressed through capital 

program

Program: Intersection
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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-Maine Highway 

Corridor Priorities

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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other-HSM to be implemented, Maine working on calibration factors (this applies to all program 

areas)

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-BC

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

Cost Effectiveness
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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 Priorities (same for all 

program areas)

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)
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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-Highway Safety Manual to be used, Maine calibration factors being developed (same for other 

program areas)

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, then submitted to MaineDOT Work Plan, selected projects go out to 

contract bid (same for other program areas)

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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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).
2013 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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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 prioritization
2013 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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2013 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-Quality & Completeness of data, reporting and data management features

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

Yes

No
2013 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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Red Light Running Prevention

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 
2013 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?
2013 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-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

Cost Effectiveness
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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-Benefit to Cost selection & systemic improvements

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 3
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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)
2013 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-Both Benefit to Cost and Systemic improvements

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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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-Often work with MaineDOT's Local Road 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).
2013 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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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 though MaineDOT's Bike/Ped coordinator
2013 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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2013 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
2013 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

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 
2013 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?
2013 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 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

Cost Effectiveness
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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
2013 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 or systemic handling

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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Other-Median Barriers addressed through capital program

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2010

 

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
2013 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 

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-Systemic, phased over several years, medians <50' wide

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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Cost Effectiveness

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-Possibly Wrong Way Driver alerts 

on interstate, Rapid Flashing Beacons(pedestrian) -

systemic is probably less than 10% currently

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 
2013 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-HSM is planned for future use - currently developing calibration factors.

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

would like to elaborate. 

Discussions with MaineDOT front office on targetted funding allocation and improved 

integration of safety into regular Work Plan paving and construction projects.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 10087339 99 % 18728175 100 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 49585 0 % 0 0 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

45260 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds

Totals 10182184 100% 18728175 100%

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

0 %
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

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 

period?

0 %

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

period? 

0 %
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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

overcome this in the future.

No impediments seen. Safety Office is working with Exec and Planning 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.

Looking to get more oriented to Lane Departure needs (Maine experiences 70% of fatalities) in 

this category. Looking to achieve a better funding balance that is reflective of SHSP priorities.
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

General Listing of Projects

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

Projec

t

Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strateg

y

59043 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0 510000 510000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1328

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59062 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 70000 70000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Collector

6574 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59070 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 35000 35000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1198

4

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

ns

59066 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

0 195000 195000 HSIP Urban 

Major 

Collector

1189

4

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59067 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 139500

0

139500

0

HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

7084 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59065 Roadway Roadway - other 0 145000 145000 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s

2150

0

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59071 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 123500

0

123500

0

HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1076

6

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59072 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0 366000 366000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1326

5

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59073 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspeci

fied

0 735000 735000 HSIP Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1349

5

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59075 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 595000 595000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1618

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59097 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

0 195000 195000 HSIP Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

1551

4

35 State 

Highway 

Improving 

the design 

and 
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

modify skew angle Other Agency operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59098 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0 575000 575000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

8326 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

58567 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspeci

fied

0 560000 560000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Collector

1821

9

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59100 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 232500

0

232500

0

HSIP Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1750

4

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59101 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

0 775000 775000 HSIP Urban 

Major 

8816 40 State 

Highway 

Improving 

the design 
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

other Collector Agency and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59096 Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspeci

fied

0 195000 195000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1505

1

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

29202 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspeci

fied

0 335000 335000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1789

7

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

59092 Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0 240000 240000 HSIP Rural Minor 

Arterial

1189

4

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 178 171 169 159 155

Number of serious injuries 1009 931 875 852 852

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.2 1.15 1.15 1.09 1.07

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 6.79 6.29 5.95 5.84 5.89

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

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

Year - 2012

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

6 49 0.29 2.26

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

23 103 1.33 5.87

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

22 104 1.33 6.24

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

13 57 1.73 7.42

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

30.8 140 1.47 6.68

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

25.8 124.2 1.81 8.71

URBAN PRINCIPAL 2 18 0.19 2.13
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1 7 0.39 4.34

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

6 65 0.82 9.18

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

7 70 0.74 7.76

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

5 48.6 0.56 5.42

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

3.4 28.4 0.8 6.66

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

81.2 475.6 1.01 5.89

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

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
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

2.4 18.4 0.19 1.47

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0.2 0 0.52

OTHER 0 0 0 0

STATE AID 31.8 166 1.22 6.34

TOWNWAY 29 150.6 1.62 8.42

TOWNWAY 29 150.6 1.62 8.42
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

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

On a long term trend analysis, Maine Crash and Fatality rates have been improving. The state's 

#1 fatality exposure is lane departure which also relates to driver behaviors of alcohol, speed 

and driver distraction.

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

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0 0.25 0 0.23 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0 1.06 0 1.05 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0 1.31 0 1.27 0

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

Per captia is based on provided mature population from FHWA. Fatalities or Serious are those 

that occur to any driver, occupant, pedestrian or bicyclist when a mature driver is involved in a 

crash event.
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 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: 
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

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: 
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

None

Median cable barrier installations on interstate highways is nearly complete.

Looking to step up centerline rumble strip installations on selected roads. 3 to 4 locations 

scheduled during the next year.
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Sustaining proficiency 

in older drivers

All 35 163 18.6 87.2 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

Speedrelated

63 238 0.44 1.65 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

All 40 145 0.28 1 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

All 53 0 0.37 0 0 0 0

Improving motorcycle 

safety and increasing 

motorcycle awareness

All 20 131 0.14 0.91 0 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

All 9 19 0.06 0.13 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in the 

roadway

All 107 428 0.74 2.97 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

All 19 209 0.13 1.44 0 0 0
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

highway intersections
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Groups of similar project types
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

77

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Core areas 

identified above 

are already 

reported on in 

Question 32.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

Systemic Treatments
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rumble Strips Head On & 

Went Off 

Road 

(select 

corridors)

1 3 1.19 4.04 0 0 0
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

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. We anticipate automating that inventory to be enable easier monitoring of 

performance in the future. Hopefully that will be reported on next year.

Centerline Rumble strips are planned for three or four more selected corridors in the next 12 

months. Performance is summarized in prior question for all affected corridors, and routes 

where installed are identified in the next question.
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

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)

Various -

Route 1, 

Woolwich; 

Route 4, 

Turner; 

Route 1A, 

Dedham; 

Route 9 

(several 

towns); 

Route 3, 

Trenton

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Miscellaneous Rumble Strips
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

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.