Page 1 of 50

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 50

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................25

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................25

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................27

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................30

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................30

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................38

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................39

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................39

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................40

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................44

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................46
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 50

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section[HSIP], shall not be subject 

to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other 

purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed 

in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, 

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court 

proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence 

at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 50

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 NHTSA-funded 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.

Ten critical emphasis areas: Distracted Driving, Impaired Driving, Speeding, Vehicle Occupant Protection, 

Teen Traffic Safety, Older Drivers, Vulnerable Roadway Users, Comprehensive Safety Data Improvement, 
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 50

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 intent of the HSIP is to 

target engineering improvements to infrastructure. Crash types of special interest have been identified in the 

crash locations CEA. The 3rd edition of the NH SHSP (2017-2021) has now been published, updating the 10 

CEAs.

23 USC 148(a)(4) provides a sample listing of eligible highway safety improvement project types; however, it is 

important to note that only data-driven projects that target strategies identified in the State SHSP are eligible 

for funding in NH. Furthermore, given the limited funding available, funds should be prioritized to help ensure 

that projects with the greatest safety return will be the top priority. For example, addressing crashes involving 

animals is a possible eligible activity but since it is not addressed in the current version of the SHSP as a CEA 

or related strategy. Since higher safety needs have been identified, HSIP funds should not be used for that 

purpose in NH.

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

program. Improvements to safety features, such as guardrail, that are routinely provided as part of a broader 

Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source funds as the broader project when that safety 

feature is included in the broader project, not HSIP funds. This allows the HSIP funds to be reserved for standalone safety projects thereby allowing for true targeting of safety needs. This is consistent with the provision of 

separate funding for safety projects and with FHWA's long-standing position on the use of safety funds.
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 50

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, 

Rail & Transit, 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 tenet 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. In addition, the State 

has involved municipal partners in two Every Day Counts 5 initiatives that will proceed in fiscal year 2020.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 50

• Operations

• Planning

• 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. 

To address the NHDOT's present deficit in data analysis expertise the Bureau of Highway Design has been 

reorganized to create a dedicated Safety Section tasked with administering the HSIP including the selection, 

evaluation, and delivery of infrastructure safety projects, and stewardship of the SHSP. This will enhance the 

NHDOT's safety capabilities by providing the necessary staff focused on this core federal program. The 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 

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

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 noninfrastructure 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.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 50

FileName:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

The NH HSIP Manual is planned to be updated in FY 2020 to incorporate changes instituted with the passage 

of the FAST ACT as well as to document the evolution of our HSIP.

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 50

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

The NHDOT is creating the second edition of the NH Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan, last 

published in 2000, to identify opportunities for improving the efficiency and safety of non-motorized travel 

throughout the state.

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 50

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: 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 
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 50

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: 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 
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 50

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: 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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 50

Program: Local 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 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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 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

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 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

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 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? 

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 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 

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 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 

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 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 

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 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? 

• 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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 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

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 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

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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 50

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

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Signing

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

The percentage of funds applied to systemic improvements is not fixed but varies annually depending on the 

availability of funds after consideration of other competing projects.

Technologies that the NHDOT does not yet use, but plans to investigate, include high friction surface treatment 

and durable pavement markings - possibly to include wet reflective materials - on higher class highways.

NHDOT is reviewing its rumble strip guidelines with the aim of adopting a design that will provide the safety 

benefits of rumble strips while reducing the nuisance exterior noise. The guideline will implement sinusoidal 

rumble strips to achieve this goal.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Engineering Study

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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.

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

elaborate. 

The NHDOT Bureau of Highway Design has recently been reorganized, one important objective of which was 

the creation of a Safety Section tasked with administering the HSIP including the selection, evaluation, and 
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 50

delivery of infrastructure safety projects, and stewardship of the SHSP. This new structure will enhance the 

NHDOT's safety capabilities by expanding upon our staff focused on this core federal program. The new 

Safety Section will also continue to work closely with FHWA to develop and sustain the NHDOT's data analysis 

capabilities needed to support our HSIP.
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 50

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) $7,282,377 $7,279,077 99.95%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$157,624 $157,624 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$1,303,559 $1,303,559 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $8,743,560 $8,740,260 99.96%

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.

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

$88,000

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

$88,000
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 50

This programmed figure is not a set-aside and varies annually depending on the priorities. Non-infrastructure 

safety projects during the reporting period were limited to road safety audits.

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

NHDOT does not transfer funds into or out of HSIP.

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 also 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 

CMFs provides a data driven process for selecting and evaluating countermeasures.
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 50

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

Belmont 16203 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $60,500 $60,500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther12,534 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reducing 

intersection 

crashes - 

offset turn 

lanes

Concord 24921 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

signal 

coordination

2 Intersections $190,311 $190,311 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,580 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes - 

traffic signals

CanterburyNorthfield 41057Interchange 

design

Extend existing 

lane on ramp

1 Interchanges $59,208 $59,208 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,800 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 41338 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective 

borders

192 Intersections $636,681 $636,681 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes - 

traffic signals

Statewide 40803 Roadside Barrier- metal 14,000 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$1,074,257 $1,074,257 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails & 

terminal units

Rochester 

41849

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

0.5 Miles $550,450 $550,450 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,128 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes 

Derry 24861 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $1,395,350 $1,395,350 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,868 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes - 

Traffic 

signals & 

offset turn 

lanes

CarrollWhitefieldJefferson 41781Roadside Barrier- metal 9,000 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$750,399 $750,399 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails & 

terminal units

ColebrookDixville 41783Roadside Barrier- metal 11,000 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$928,843 $928,843 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails & 

terminal units
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 50

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

Fitzwilliam 

16211

Access 

management

Raised island - 

install new

1 Intersections $1,144,617 $1,144,617 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,800 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes - 

Statewide 41604 Roadside Barrier- metal 18,700 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$645,618 $645,618 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrail & 

terminal units

Statewide 28139 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

1 D6 - District 

wide

$165,000 $165,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Curve 

warning signs 

& devices

Statewide 28134 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

1 D1 - District 

wide

$220,000 $220,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Curve 

warning signs 

& devices

NorthumberlandStratford 41898Roadside Barrier- metal 11,000 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$55,000 $55,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails & 

terminal units

Claremont 

25621

Access 

management

Change in 

access - close or 

restrict existing 

access

2 Access 

points

$33,000 $33,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 20,900 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes - 

Access 

management 

near 

intersections

Swanzey 40485 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $220,000 $220,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 5,700 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes - 

Roundabouts

Statewide 41899 Roadside Barrier- metal 6,800 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$55,000 $55,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails & 

terminal units

Statewide 41897 Roadside Barrier- metal 14,600 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$55,000 $55,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails & 

terminal units
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 50

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

Tilton 29358 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

flashers - add 

overhead 

(continuous)

1 Intersections $8,800 $8,800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,570 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes - 

Flashing 

beacons

Chester 41848 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $82,500 $82,500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 6,736 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 40921 Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

$60,500 $60,500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Somersworth 

42110

Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $36,300 $36,300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,000 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 41269 Roadside Barrier- metal 10500 Linear feet of 

guardrail 

replacements

$3300 $3300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes - 

Guardrails & 

terminal units
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 50

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 128 90 108 135 95 114 136 102 147

Serious Injuries 528 462 623 489 451 459 477 410 451

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.980 0.708 0.838 1.046 0.732 0.871 1.009 0.746 1.067

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.041 3.632 4.832 3.790 3.477 3.505 3.540 2.997 3.275

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

9 9 9 17 16 13 21 14 12

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

32 43 50 40 37 53 42 40 27
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 32 of 50 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 33 of 50

Data sources are prescribed by the regulations:

Fatalities: NHTSA Rate of Fatalities (HMVMT): NHTSA & HPMS Serious Injuries: NH Department of Safety 

(NHDOS) Rate of Serious Injuries (HMVMT): NHDOS & HPMS Non Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries: 

NHTSA & NHDOS

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

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

HPMS – Traffic volume data is calculated by DOT and posted by FHWA. The source is considered consistent 

and reliable. Data is available from 2007 allowing for the computation of 5-yr averages for trend analysis.

DOS – Serious injury data for motorized and non-motorized crashes is gathered from the NHDOS Division of 

Motor Vehicle's VISION database and provided to the NHDOT. Sufficient annual data is available (via VISION 

and its predecessor, IDMS) to permit the computation of five-year averages for trend analysis. Some of the 

annual variation in the data may be due to the more subjective nature of determining what constitutes a serious 

injury crash. Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) introduced in recent years have helped to 

standardize the definition and proper classification of serious injuries.

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 34 of 50

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

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or 

Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street

other 0.35 2.36 0 0.02
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 50

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

0 0 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

0 0 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0 0 0

other 0.35 2.36 0 0.02

Due to the NH Department of Safety's migration from their former crash records database (known as CRMS) to 

a new MMUCC-compliant system (known as VISION), geolocated serious injury data is not yet available for 

querying by functional classification. The NHDOT continues to coordinate with our safety partners within state 

government to make this vital safety data available.

In the reporting of serious injury crashes by road ownership, an additional six serious injury crashes occurred 

on roads without VMT data. These crashes have been omitted from the table above as the tool does not allow 

entry of a crash number without an accompanying crash rate.
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 50

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:118.8

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

Trend analysis of the fatalities data produces mostly intuitive results. The 2018 five year average is 

118.8 fatalities. Fatalities in the last decade have shown wide variation over a one to two year cycle, 

with the number of 2018 fatalities being the highest recorded value for the decade. The five year 

average of the number of fatalities also increased from 2017 to 2018, but with the five-year average 

trend line mostly attenuating the large annual increase. The annual fatalities rates and the five year 

averages exhibit similar patterns seen in the numbers of fatalities. The rising trend computed by the 

data is not acceptable as a target 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 2020 target of 118.8 

fatalities (maintaining the 2018 five-year average) is recommended. The rising trend computed by the 

data is not acceptable as a target as it would be contrary to the core objective of the state’s Driving 

Toward Zero initiative.

Number of Serious Injuries:448.0

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

Trend analysis shows reductions in both the number and rate of serious injuries. The computed 2020 

targets represent 3.7% and 4.8% reductions respectively from the 2018 five year averages. The 

computed targets are substantially lower than any historical values within the analysis period (with the 

exception of 2017). A 2020 target of 448 serious injuries is recommended as it would be a more 

achievable goal consistent with the observed safety performance in recent years, yet would still 

represent the best serious injury performance in the decade. This target represents an annual 

reduction in the five year average of 0.2%.

Fatality Rate:0.885

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

Trend analysis of the fatalities data produces mostly intuitive results. The 2018 five year average 

fatality rate is 0.885 per HMVMT. Fatalities in the last decade have shown wide variation over a one 

to two year cycle, with the number of 2018 fatalities being the highest recorded value for the decade. 

The five year average of the number of fatalities also increased from 2017 to 2018, but with the fiveyear average trend line mostly attenuating the large annual increase. The annual fatalities rates and 

the five year averages exhibit similar patterns seen in the numbers of fatalities. A 2020 target fatality 

rate of 0.885 fatalities per HMVMT (maintaining the 2018 five-year average) is recommended. The 

rising trend computed by the data is not acceptable as a target 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.

Serious Injury Rate:3.269
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 50

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

Trend analysis shows reductions in both the number and rate of serious injuries. The computed 2020 

targets represent 3.7% and 4.8% reductions respectively from the 2018 five year averages. The 

computed targets are substantially lower than any historical values within the analysis period (with the 

exception of 2017). A 2020 target serious injury rate of 3.269 fatalities per HMVMT is recommended 

as it would present a more achievable goal while still representing better performance than has been 

observed in the decade. This target represents an annual reduction in the five year average of 1.4%.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:51.6

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

Trend analysis shows a slightly declining trend and a 2020 target value of 53.1 non-motorized 

fatalities and serious injuries. Although the trend line is declining, the computed target value is 

actually higher than the 2018 five-year average performance. In this instance, a more aggressive 

target value would be appropriate. A 2020 target of 51.6 fatalities and serious injuries (i.e., 

maintaining the 2018 performance) is recommended. This target would be consistent with the 

performance trend since 2015 and would represent a more aggressive, although still realistic, 

performance level.

In concert with the collaborative and data-driven Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the annual safety performance 

targets have as their basis the SHSP's fundamental goal of reducing fatal crashes by half by the year 2030, 

with the ultimate goal of zero fatalities. A similar motivating goal drives the targets for serious injuries, both for 

motorized and non-motorized modes. The process of target setting, likewise, emulates the SHSP in that it is 

collaborative, involving many of the same safety stakeholders who are instrumental in the SHSP, and uses 

objective data-driven methods wherever possible to derive and inform the safety targets.

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 in April 2019 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 and the 

NHOHS, as well as NHDOT and NHDOS leadership for concurrence. 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
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 50

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

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Comparison of 2018 targets (from 2017 HSIP annual report) vs actual performance

Fatalities: 2018 target = 113.2, 2018 actual = 118.8, 2017 actual = 116.4 [2018 did not achieve or make 

progress toward target]

Fatality rate: 2018 target = 0.866, 2018 actual = 0.885, 2017 actual = 0.882 [2018 did not achieve or make 

progress toward target]

Serious injuries: 2018 target = 499.8, 2018 actual = 449.6, 2017 actual = 457.2 [2018 performance achieved 

target]

Serious injury rate: 2018 target = 3.847, 2018 actual = 3.359, 2017 actual = 3.464 [2018 performance achieved 

target]

Non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries: 2018 target = 51.4, 2018 actual = 51.6, 2017 actual = 58.6 [2018 

performance made significant progress toward target]

Discussion 

NH fatal crash performance continues to show large variance on an annual or biannual cycle in recent years. 

The possible causes of the 2018 fatality spike have not been determined, although the same principal causes 

of fatalities are generally seen in both the higher and lower fatality years, namely impairment, distraction, 

speeding, and lack of restraint use. Safety stakeholders continue to work for the adoption of an adult seatbelt 

law as the most effective means of reducing the number of fatalities. The NHDOT is also investigating a 

potential shift in our infrastructure expenditures toward more systemic and fewer spot improvements, as a 

more effective application of our safety funds. It is also worth noting that NHDOT continues to not flex any 

HSIP funds.

Serious injury numbers continue to fall, but it should be acknowledged that some of this improvement is 

possibly due to better reporting accuracy resulting from the adoption of MMUCC standards. In the early years 

of this decade the large annual variation in serious injury numbers was believed to be at least partly attributed 

to inconsistencies in the diagnosis and reporting of serious injury crashes.

Non-motorized crash performance is showing favorable trends; however, because the crash numbers are 

relatively low they are subject to proportionally large statistical variation. NHDOT is embarking on a statewide 

effort to improve pedestrian crossings via the Every Day Counts 5 initiative.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

21 22 33 23 23 20 30

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

60 65 57 72 80 80 67
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 50

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. The program's goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on NH roadways by improving 

safety with the proposed improvements.

NHDOT's HSIP program also includes systemic 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 comply with MUTCD, installation of retroreflective backplates 

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

and terminal units to meet current safety standards.

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 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

• More systemic programs

• Organizational change

At the start of FY 2018 the NHDOT Bureau of Highway Design expanded its Safety Section, which historically 

been comprised of one or two individuals, to five individuals to provide a more robust level of program support.

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.
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 50

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

In response to frequent noise complaints related to 'standard' rumble strips, but in recognition of the proven 

safety value of rumble strips, NHDOT is updating 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. 

Year 2017

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Intersections 20 101 0.15 0.74

Pedestrians 12 35 0.09 0.26

Bicyclists 2 6 0.01 0.04

Older Drivers 18 17 0.13 0.12

Motorcyclists 15 85 0.11 0.62

Data 102 374 0.75 2.73
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 50

Due to the NH Department of Safety's recent migration from their former crash records database (known as 

CRMS) to a new MMUCC-compliant system (known as VISION), geolocated serious injury data is not available 

for querying. Because of this data deficiency, the NHDOT is not able to provide actual 2018 counts for fatal 

crashes related to lane or roadway departure, or intersections, or serious injury crashes related to lane 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 43 of 50

departure. Rather than enter '0' for the missing data (and thereby skew the computed averages), 2018 values 

have been estimated to produce 5-year averages similar to the 2017 annual report.

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 to 

support program decisions.
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 50

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

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify leftturn lane offset

Whitefield 

P2953

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway - other 29.00 13.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 36.00 17.00 1.48

Statewide 

15358

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 4.00 4.00

Derry 13249 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

62.00 114.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 12.00 74.00 131.00 0.78

New London 

14451A

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

23.00 56.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 33.00 62.00 19.05

Boscawen 

13957A

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - 

other

2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 0.32

Holderness 

15309

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

modify skew angle

7.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 3.61

Pittsfield 

15622

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

13.00 2.00 7.00 7.00 20.00 9.00 1.65

Brentwood 

15619

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

9.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 14.00 25.00 26.00 36.86

Greenland 

15618

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane26.00 20.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 33.00 28.00 3.02

Boscawen 

15621

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

14.00 16.00 6.00 6.00 20.00 22.00 0.55

HampsteadAtkinson 

15663

Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane15.00 11.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 19.00 14.00 6.78
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 50

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)

Lyme 15695 Rural Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

modify skew angle

2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.39

Effingham

16041

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - add 

enhanced regulatory sign 

(double-up and/or 

oversize)

6.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 11.00 3.00 532.64

Epping 15693 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Through lanes - add 

additional through lane

56.00 49.00 1.00 1.00 18.00 18.00 75.00 68.00 1.16

Keene 20812 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

12.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 2.00 0.93

Swanzey 

15697A

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

9.00 3.00 9.00 9.00 18.00 12.00 375.83

Barrington 

16201

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane12.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 19.00 10.00 0.90

Barnstead 

16200

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane17.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 23.00 5.00 1.58

Candia 16413 Rural Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

re-assign existing lane use

3.00 12.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 15.00 5.9
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 50

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/19/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2021

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 80 2

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 50

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

5 5

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

5

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 50

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

5

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 98.89 94.56 88.13 88.13 82.73 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

collected on roads of Function Class 1 through 7. Work is nearing completion on median types for State roads, while the data collection efforts are in their early stages for the remaining FDEs.

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, 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.

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

No

Two assessments, a program self assessment and a safety data capabilities assessment, are scheduled for early FY 2019. The results will be reported next year.

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

2019
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 50

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 50

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.