New Hampshire

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: NH
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..............................................................................................................................5

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................28

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 28

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 33

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) ..........................................56

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

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

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

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................82
iv
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in New Hampshire (NH) includes the core 

“Hazard Elimination” (referred to as HSIP Funds) and High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) category 

funds (left over from SAFETEA-LU as the MAP-21 law). The plan does not address the 

expenditures of Rail/Grade Crossing funds. 

The overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related 

highway safety improvements. 

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

statewide network screening of crashes on all roadway types and distributes results to NHDOT 

Districts, Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance, and Bureau of Traffic, as well as 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and Regional Planning Commissions (RPC). These 

stakeholders are encouraged to review the results of the analysis and provide comments on 

known aspects of specific locations. 

The HSIP committee consists of Assistant Director Project Development, design, traffic, 

maintenance, and planning personnel from the NHDOT, RPCs, MPOs and FHWA (Appendix C). 

Committee meetings are held quarterly, or as necessary, to review project selection and 

progress reports from project managers. Regional Planning Commissions are encouraged to 

incorporate the HSIP process in their Transportation Improvement Plan development. 

The State’s HSIP Program utilizes three approaches to identify sites for improvement. Each 

approach identifies cost-effective solutions through different analysis methods. The three 

approaches will identify sites for Traditional, Systemic, and Road Safety Audit projects that have 

potential for safety improvements. The present strategy is to set aside up to ten percent of HSIP 

funding for locally requested safety improvement projects and to balance the remainder between 

Traditional and Systemic improvements. The committee reviews the funding allocations of 

Traditional and Systemic categories annually and adjusts the budget based on identified 

improvements 
2013 New Hampshire 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.

Municipally-maintained local roads and intersections are included in the screening with Statemaintained sites and are evaluated using the same methodology. The majority of rural 

collector as well as rural and urban local road (functional class 8, 9, and 19) traffic data are not 

available, and therefore the volumes are estimated based on similar roads that have measured 

data. Urban and rural local roads are categorized separately from the other functional classes 

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

improve volume data on all public roads.
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Regional Planning Commission staff

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

statewide network screening of crashes on all roadway types and distributes results to NHDOT 

Districts, Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance, and Bureau of Traffic, as well as 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and Regional Planning Commissions (RPC). These 

stakeholders are encouraged to review the results of the analysis and provide comments on 

known aspects of specific locations. Comments may include, but is not limited to: recent work 

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

area, local experience/insight on crashes, etc. 

The HSIP committee consists of Assistant Director Project Development, design, traffic, 

maintenance, and planning personnel from the NHDOT, RPCs, MPOs and FHWA (Appendix C). 

Committee meetings are held quarterly, or as necessary, to review project selection and 

progress reports from project managers. Regional Planning Commissions are encouraged to 

incorporate the HSIP process in their Transportation Improvement Plan development. 

The State identifies lane departure crashes and intersections crashes as critical crash types in 

the Crash Locations Critical Emphasis Area in the SHSP, which addresses engineering and 

infrastructure-related improvements. Projects are identified that target these types of crashes 

using the methods listed below. The three approaches will identify sites for Traditional, 

Systemic, and Road Safety Audit projects that have potential for safety improvements. 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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

screening for review. Some sites may go beyond the scope of an HSIP project, which typically 

means their cost is greater than the anticipated benefits, or the overall cost of right-of-way, 

environmental, and scope of improvements is of a magnitude that it is of an improvement is 

deemed too costly or prohibitive in relation to other potential HSIP projects. These sites are 

recommended for consideration in the long-range capital improvement plans. 

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Regional Planning Commission Staff

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate.

The NHDOT Highway Safety Engineer (HSE) updates the Safety Analyst data import to the ten 

most recent years of data and then the HSE performs the Network Screening and produces the 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Transparency Report of potential projects, by October 1. The HSE distributes the Transparency 

Report to stakeholders in October, for consideration of HSIP funding proposed projects locations 

and completion of submittal packages are due on January 1. The committee selects and 

prioritizes the projects from January – March. March – September completes the cycle and ends 

the Federal fiscal year; all annual funding is obligated by September 30.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was signed into law, which 

eliminated specific HRRR funding and created a special rule for High Risk Rural Roads. MAP21 also revised the definition of what is considered a “High Risk” Rural Road. The new 

definition is “any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural 

local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in accordance with an updated State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan”.

The term “High Risk Rural Road” means any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or 

minor collector or rural local road (functional class 7, 8 and 9)- a) on which the crash rate for 

fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for roadways of the same 

functional classifications or roadway; or b) that will likely have increases in traffic volumes that 

are estimated to create an crash rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the 

statewide average for those functional classifications of roadway. 

Though there is no longer a specific pot of money for an HRRR program, NHDOT chooses to 

continue to fund improvement on these roadways though the HSIP program. A statewide 

analysis of lane departure crashes is used to identify towns with the greatest number of the 

targeted crash types. The prioritized list is filtered by each of the nine RPCs. Towns are selected 

from each RPC. Sixteen towns chose to participate in the first phase of the program. 

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: 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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-Run Off the Road 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
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

no medians on local roads

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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-EPDO Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

EPDO

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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 Population Functional classification
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

crashes only

Other-Run Off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-site subtype

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
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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-need requirement MIRE and HSM

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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-Run Off the Road 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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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-RSA request from local agencies

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Ranking based on B/C 100

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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-Run off the Road

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

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 

Other-RSA local agency

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
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

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
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Other-Run off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Site subtype

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

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 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

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

50

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

improvments?
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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-intersections

Other Other-F--terminal Replacements Other Other-Other Median Barriers

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

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
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

NH has adopted Road Safety Audits (RSA) guidelines to assist in the identification of safety 

improvements on existing roads. The Road Safety Audit projects (RSA) approach is designed to 

provide the opportunity for agencies to submit their concerns about unsafe sites, preferably 

with high crash data, for consideration that have not been identified through other methods. 

Locations submitted by local and/or regional stakeholders shall require a Road Safety Audit 

(RSA). To request a Road Safety Audit, a HSIP Candidate Location Package shall be submitted to 

the NHDOT State Highway Safety Engineer. 

The HSIP Candidate Location Package shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

• A completed NHDOT Road Safety Audit Application (see Appendix E). The Road Safety 

Audit Application shall be signed by the local governing body (e.g. Board of Selectmen) 

or their designee, the NHDOT District Engineer (if the identified location affects statemaintained infrastructure), and the applicable Regional Planning Commission;

• A written description of the location with a summary of the safety problem(s) at the 

location;

• A map showing the affected location;

• A summary of traffic volume data at the location (AADT for segments, turning 

movement data for intersections);

• Crash reports at the location for the most recent ten-year period;

• A crash diagram displaying the time, type, and severity of crashes at the location;

• Photographs of the location.

Local stakeholders are encouraged to contact their Regional Planning Commission for 

assistance in compiling the required information for the HSIP Candidate Location package. 

Following submission to the NHDOT State Highway Safety Engineer, HSIP Candidate Location 

packages are reviewed and prioritized by the HSIP Committee. Ideally, effective 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

countermeasures identified will cost less than $100,000 dollars or be approved by the HSIP 

Committee. The project must meet the project selection criteria (Appendix B). When an audit 

identifies cost effective counter-measures at a site, it may qualify for HSIP funding.

The Audit team is made from a diverse group of stakeholders representing multiple disciplines 

and may include local officials such as police and fire chiefs; business and land owners adjacent 

to the site; NHDOT engineering staff such; and a Facilitator (typically a Consultant hired by the 

NHDOT) to conduct the RSA.

 The Road Safety Audit typically takes three hours, which includes the presentation, site visit 

and suggestions/ discussions for options. Depending on the specific issues involved the road 

safety audit may take place in the morning, afternoon and/or evening. The Facilitator compiles 

the suggestions in a report. The resulting RSA report will generally recommend short, medium, 

and long term solutions, identifying the party(ies) responsible for implementing them. Short 

and medium term solutions can often be implemented within normal maintenance or 

operations programs. Long term solutions would generally require some measure of capital 

improvement that would need to be included within a transportation improvement program. 

The Consultant also develops 3 concepts from the long term solutions and places those 

concepts on an aerial to be used in meetings to help show the long term solution.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter the programmed and obligated funding for each applicable funding category.
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 7275279.52 82 % 6875279.52 86 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 1605000 18 % 1105000 14 %

HRRR Special Rule 0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

0 0 % 0 0 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

0 0 % 0 0 %

State and Local Funds 0 0 % 0 0 %

Totals 8880279.52 100% 7980279.52 100%

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

4 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$350,000.00
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

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

4 %

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

$350,000.00

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 %

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

overcome this in the future.

One of the biggest impediments to obligating the HSIP funds has been identification and 

development of enough projects on an annual bases to cover the funding for that year.

Ideally, we should have a backlog of projects. Currently, we are having trouble obligating all the 

funds given to us annually due to not having enough projects. If an individual project is delayed 

for some reason, we should have other projects that could take it's place. We currently do not 

have enough on-shelf projects. 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Two things that will help improve NHDOT obligating HSIP funds are: 1) having a way to design 

the projects and 2) a method to identify projects.

NHDOT is currently in the process of hiring 2 on-call consultants that will work specifically on 

HSIP projects. These consultants will be able to help improve NHDOT crash data as well as 

Design projects.

The Road Safety Audit(RSA) process is under utilized currently by the local towns and Regional 

Planning Commissions. NHDOT needs to develop a better way to inform the RCPs and town 

about the RSA process and the available funds. 

NHDOT has been successful with guard rail replacement program. Those systemic replacements 

principles can be applied to median barrier upgrades, High Risk Rural Road projects, sign 

replacement projects, pavement 

marking improvements and intersection improvements. The Rumble strip program is also over 

coming the reluctance to install more rumble stripes systematically and funds to be obligated 

over the next several years will increase.

The data for safety analyst comes from other state agencies and needs to be processed by them 

prior to importing the data into the software. Typically this data is available in June but this year 

it is late. 

This will effect the completion of the next transparency report for the state and local roads. The 

Administrators of the

Bureau of Highway Design and Planning Community service need to work out a priority list and 

schedule to prevent the data being processed and delivered late.

All of the crashes are not reported and this effects the quality of the crash data. Education to 

the reporting officers needs to be done to help improve the data. Eticket software is also be 

implemented at the Department of Safety. This will also improve the quality of crash data

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

For a project entering the HSIP through the transparency report the timeline for the HSIP process 

is:

May – October for network analysis; 

October – January for evaluation of high crash locations; 

January – March for project selection, prioritization, and budget optimization;
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

March – September for project development. 

The NHDOT Highway Safety Engineer (HSE) updates the Safety Analyst data import to the ten 

most recent years of data and then the HSE performs the Network Screening and produces the 

Transparency Report of potential projects, by October 1. The HSE distributes the Transparency 

Report to stakeholders in October, for consideration of HSIP funding proposed projects locations 

and completion of submittal packages are due on January 1. The committee selects and 

prioritizes the projects from January – March. March – September completes the cycle and ends 

the Federal fiscal year; all annual funding is obligated by September 30 .

The State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) lists the funding for HSIP/HRRR as a line 

item. Projects are selected for HSIP funding through the procedures outlined earlier, and a 

prioritized list of projects is maintained for the present and subsequent fiscal years. Ideally all 

funds programmed for a given year are allocated in that year to best improve highway safety as 

quickly as possible. 

The values shown in the table below are anticipated Federal and State Resources for the years 

2013 – 2016 and reflect values in the STIP. Actual amounts used will be based on funds made 

available from these sources. 

2013 2014 2015 2016

Federal 

Resources$ 8,838,998 $ 8,838,998 $ 8,838,998 $ 8,838,998

State Resources $ 890,000 $ 890,000 $ 890,000 $ 890,000

Total$ 9,728,998 $ 9,728,998 $ 9,728,998 $ 9,728,998
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Ownersh

ip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Gilford Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

left-turn lane

Numbe

rs

44850

0

44850

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

6200 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

intersectio

n 

geometry

Rindge Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

left-turn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

38118

0

38118

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

7900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

intersectio

n 

geometry

statewide 

systemic

Non-infrastructure 0 

Numbe

rs

17500

0

17500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

data 

improvem

ent

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

data 

improvem

ent
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

manageme

nt systems

BedfordMnachest

er

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

0 

Numbe

rs

99000

0

99000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

1900

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

improve 

runoff the 

roadway 

crashes

Statewide 

D4 

systemic

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Curverelated warning signs 

and flashers

0 

Numbe

rs

56500

0

56500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5000 40 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

improving 

signs and 

reducing 

run off the 

road 

crashes

statewide 

d5 

systemic

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Roadway 

signs and traffic control 

- other

0 

Numbe

rs

54000

0

54000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5000 45 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

improving 

data and 

reducing 

run off the 

road 

crashes

guardrail 

replaceme

nt - cable

Roadside Barrier -

cable

0 

Numbe

rs

10000

00

10000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5000 45 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

reducing 

run off the 

road 

crashes

Manchest

er

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

1 

Numbe

35000

0

35000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Minor 

1200

0

45 City of 

Municip

al 

Improving 

the design 

and 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

modernization/replace

ment

rs n 148) Collector Highway 

Agency

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

guardrail f 

unit 

upgrade

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 

Numbe

rs

11000

00

11000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

rumble 

stripes

Roadway Rumble strips 

- edge or shoulder

0 

Numbe

rs

16500

0

16500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

statewide 

rumble 

stripes

Roadway Rumble strips 

- center

0 

Numbe

rs

40000

0

40000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

staewide 

pavement 

markings

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

0 

Numbe

rs

91500

0

91500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

5000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

ns

Barringto

n

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

1 Miles 75000 75000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

1400

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

WEDU Non-infrastructure 0 

Numbe

rs

25000

0

25000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

education 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Increasing 

driver 

safety 

awareness
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

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* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of fatalities 124 120 89 112 92

Number of serious injuries 631 625 623 603 597

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.08 1.1 1.01 0.96 0.91

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 4.72 4.68 4.69 4.56 4.55

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

38
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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 26 0.44 2

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

14 51 1 3.6

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

14 51 1 3.6

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

13 43 1.3 4.2

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

8 35 1.4 6.22

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

16 62 1.46 5.52

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

11 61 2.67 15

URBAN PRINCIPAL 6 32 0.37 1.79
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3 17 0.3 1.61

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

11 61 0.91 4.93

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

13 105 0.75 6.18

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

8 48 0.96 5.78

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

8 48 0.9 5.8

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

9 53 1.23 7.49

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

87 362 0.86 3.57

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

21 127 1.35 8.23

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

12 108 0.8 7.5

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

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 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

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

Eliminating deaths on New Hampshire roadways is an important vision and the driving force 

behind this plan and the coalition that united in its development. It is also an important vision for 

the public, all of whom travel New Hampshire’s roadways—by car, motorcycle, truck, bicycle, 

or even on foot—day and night under all types of weather conditions. Our mission is to create a 

safety culture where even one death is too many, through acollaborative effort of both public and 

private entities, as well as the implementation ofeducation, enforcement, engineering, and 

emergency management solutions.Our vision is to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury 

crashes on New Hampshireroadways to ZERO. The principles on which the Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan was developed comprise a comprehensive, systematic approach in the reduction of 

crashes on all public roads. The plan is integrated, proactive, and data-driven, both in the 

selection of counter measures and in the evaluation of results. The need for New Hampshire to 

take action to reduce motor vehicle crashesis clear. According to the Department of Safety’s 

Crashes Database, in 2010,30,736 motor vehicle crashes occurred on New Hampshire’s 

roadways, resultingin 128 deaths and 528 severe injuries. In 2011 the number of fatalities was 

down to 90. A collective effort between all of the emphasis areas in the Strategic Highway 

Safety plan has contributed to this decrease. State Police has made some headway with Impaired 

driving, Distracted Driving and speeding. Thru education and training the State Police are 

contributing towards eliminating death on New Hampshire roadways. Vehicle Occupant 

Protection, Teen Driver and Older Driver committees have all worked together to enhance 

education for their emphasis areas and have tried to pass new laws that will make the roadways 

of New Hampshire safer for everyone. They all have a common goal to educate and improve the 

safety along the roadway. The Rev continues to educate the public about motorcycle safety and 

helps users determine which size motorcycle is the best for them. The motorcycle safety training 

class also is training users to ride safer. NHDOT remains committed to Safety. The NHDOT 

along with its safety partners have set the goal of zero fatalities Recognizing the probability of 

reaching zero is a vision, the NHDOT has set a target of reducing fatal and severe injury crashes 

by 50% by the year 2030. 

Two Committees have been developed: Intersection Safety Implementation committee and the 

Highway Safety Implementation Plan committee

• Both committees consists of DOT, FHWA, City of Concord and Manchester & local 

RCP 

¿ Both groups have developed guidelines

¿ These groups meets quarterly.

• The intersection safety Implementation committee is working to advertise a project that 

will add back plates to signal heads at signalized intersections. There will be separate projects for 

state roads and for town and city roads.

• The Highway Safety Implementation Plan committee approves Road safety audit 

locations & all HSIP projects
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

¿ The NHDOT is using Safety Analyst to identify HSIP projects In 2012 the NHDOT 

advertised 12 projects at a value of $8,000,000 to make safety improvements on the state 

Highway System. 

The 2012 projects include: 

• 3 intersection projects that had some of the highest fatality numbers in the state

• 2.98 miles of median barrier to prevent median crossover head on crashes

• 41.6 lane miles of shoulder rumble stripes 

• 6.3 lane miles of center lane rumble stripes.

• 9.5 miles of guardrail upgrades

• $0.5 million was spent to upgrade warning signs on local roads in 43 communities for 

horizontal curves

In 2013 there were:

• $2.25 Million intersection improvements for 3 projects

• $880,000 to establish median barrier in areas of narrow medians

• $2 million of guardrail upgrades which is about 8.8 miles 

• $277,000 for rumble stripes, which is about 100 lane miles

• $450,000 in horizontal curve improvements for one project

• $1.2 million in upgrading and adding warning signs for 3 projects 

The NHDOT is also investing funds to target behavior issues that lead to fatal crashes DOT is 

collaborating with other agencies and organizations in outreach efforts to help educate the 

public. 

2013 HSIP 

REPORTING

K A K rate A rate 5-year K 5-year A 5-year K 

2002 127 705 1.01 5.61 

2003 127 623 0.96 4.73 

2004 171 674 1.29 5.10 

2005 166 632 1.24 4.71 

2006 127 569 0.93 4.18 143.6 640.6 1.09 

2007 129 655 0.96 4.87 144.0 630.6 1.08

2008 138 594 1.06 4.56 146.2 624.8 1.10

2009 110 667 0.85 5.14 134.0 623.4 1.01

2010 128 528 0.98 4.04 126.4 602.6 0.96

2011 90 542 0.69 4.15 119.0 597.2 0.91
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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) 25 18 20 22 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

43 51 51 62 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

68 69 71 84 0

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

(i.e. see attachment [question 27.docx])
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

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 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-culture change
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

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

NH has formalized the Road Safety Audit process and it now includes a way for the auditted 

project to become a project.

 NH has adopted Road Safety Audits (RSA) guidelines to assist in the identification of safety 

improvements on existing roads. The Road Safety Audit projects (RSA) approach is designed to 

provide the opportunity for agencies to submit their concerns about unsafe sites, preferably 

with high crash data, for consideration that have not been identified through other methods. 

Locations submitted by local and/or regional stakeholders shall require a Road Safety Audit 

(RSA). To request a Road Safety Audit, a HSIP Candidate Location Package shall be submitted to 

the NHDOT State Highway Safety Engineer. 

The HSIP Candidate Location Package shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

• A completed NHDOT Road Safety Audit Application (see Appendix E). The Road 

Safety Audit Application shall be signed by the local governing body (e.g. Board of 

Selectmen) or their designee, the NHDOT District Engineer (if the identified location 

affects state-maintained infrastructure), and the applicable Regional Planning 

Commission;

• A written description of the location with a summary of the safety problem(s) at the 

location;

• A map showing the affected location;

• A summary of traffic volume data at the location (AADT for segments, turning 

movement data for intersections);

• Crash reports at the location for the most recent ten-year period;

• A crash diagram displaying the time, type, and severity of crashes at the location;

• Photographs of the location.

Local stakeholders are encouraged to contact their Regional Planning Commission for 

assistance in compiling the required information for the HSIP Candidate Location package. 

Following submission to the NHDOT State Highway Safety Engineer, HSIP Candidate Location 

packages are reviewed and prioritized by the HSIP Committee. Ideally, effective 
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

countermeasures identified will cost less than $100,000 dollars or be approved by the HSIP 

Committee. The project must meet the project selection criteria (Appendix B). When an audit 

identifies cost effective counter-measures at a site, it may qualify for HSIP funding.

The Audit team is made from a diverse group of stakeholders representing multiple disciplines 

and may include local officials such as police and fire chiefs; business and land owners adjacent 

to the site; NHDOT engineering staff such; and a Facilitator (typically a Consultant hired by the 

NHDOT) to conduct the RSA.

 The Road Safety Audit typically takes three hours, which includes the presentation, site 

visit and suggestions/ discussions for options. Depending on the specific issues involved the road 

safety audit may take place in the morning, afternoon and/or evening. The Facilitator compiles 

the suggestions in a report. The resulting RSA report will generally recommend short, medium, 

and long term solutions, identifying the party(ies) responsible for implementing them. Short and 

medium term solutions can often be implemented within normal maintenance or operations 

programs. Long term solutions would generally require some measure of capital improvement 

that would need to be included within a transportation improvement program.

Factors looked at in determining potential improvement funding sources and levels include: 

ownership of roadway, magnitude of cost, safety benefits anticipated, and priorities of the 

program. The Federal ‘Highway Safety Improvement Program’ funds managed by the NHDOT 

may fund a number of improvements based on these factors as well as other Department 

concerns. Two key factors in determining if the HSIP program can support potential 

improvement using HSIP funds is the benefit cost ratio for the particular improvement and the 

demands on the funds for other safety improvements being considered in other locations around 

the State.
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

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

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

teen drivers 15-17 

yo

7 42 5 0.32 0 0 0

Ensuring drivers are 

licensed and fully 

competent

education (all) 119 596 0.91 4.54 0 0 0

Sustaining 

proficiency in older 

drivers

older drivers 20 85 0.15 0.65 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

aggression 

(overestimated)

40 228 0.3 1.74 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

impaired 19 105 0.15 0.8 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert distraction 6 92 0.05 0.7 0 0 0

Increasing driver 

safety awareness

All 119 596 0.91 4.54 0 0 0
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

restraint used 23 222 0.17 1.69 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

Vehicle/pedestrian 8 32 0.06 0.24 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Vehicle/bicycle 2 11 0.01 0.08 0 0 0
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Groups of similar project types
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

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

Roadway 

Departure

Run-offroad

48.2 204 1 4 0 0 0

Sign Replacement 

And Improvement

Fixed object 47.6 177 1 4 0 0 0

Horizontal Curve Run-offroad47.6 177 1 4 0 0 0

Intersection Angle 13 143 1 4 0 0 0

Local Safety Run-offroad37 254 1 4 0 0 0

Median Barrier 13 59 1 4 0 0 0

Crash Data Run-offroad119 597 1 4 0 0 0

Segments Run-offroad97 430 1 4 0 0 0
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Systemic Treatments
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

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

Cable Median 

Barriers

All 13 59 0.69 4.15 0 0 0

local safety Run-offroad37 255 0.69 4.15 0 0 0

Install/Improve 

Signing

Night-time 48 177 0.69 4.15 0 0 0

Rumble Strips Run-offroad48 204 0.69 4.15 0 0 0

Other-intersections Rear end 13 143 0.69 4.15 0 0 0
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

A systemic approach is the reverse of the Traditional approach. Systemic improvements are 

improvements that are widely implemented based on high risk roadway features that are 

correlated with particular crash types, rather than crash frequency. The first step is to identify 

crash types that make a significant reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes. Then low-cost 

countermeasures are identified to mitigate the specific crash type. Finally, the chosen 

mitigating countermeasures are installed systemically at sites identified with a high potential 

for these crash types based on their existing geometry and roadway features.

In 2009, the State identified its first systemic project focusing on rural signing improvements. 

Since that time, the following systemic projects have been implemented: rumble strips, median 

barriers, guardrail improvements, and intersection improvements. It is the intent of the NH 

HSIP to use systemic projects as a significant means to improve safety around the State.
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

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)

Not enough 

information 

yet in our 

data to 

complete 

this section
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements: Description of Overall 

Effectiveness

question 27.docx
2013 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

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.