Page 1 of 65

MAINE
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 65

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 30

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 30

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 35

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 35

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 48

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 51

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 53

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 53

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 54

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 58

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 60
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 65

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.” 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 65

Executive Summary

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

Before and After crash results comparisons on safety projects have consistently shown performance 

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

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

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

barrier are also funded. Systemic approach was used in selecting centerline rumble strips during project years 

of 2016-2020. 2016 was Maine's largest rumble strip installation year with about 150 miles going in and a 

similar number of miles are planned for 2017. Maine is looking to expand it's systemic approach to further 

impact lane departure crash reduction - Maine's leading crash concern. A more involved data analysis process 

is underway to develop a systemic approach to crashes on curves - a major segment of Maine's Went Off Road 

Crashes. Other broad strategies are underway to address speed management, pedestrian safety and interstate 

wrong way ramp entries.

Pedestrian Safety emphasis has a solidified strategy where targeted outreach to communities is underway 

which includes safety reviews of locations where public expressed priority needs. Program is multi-agency 

involved and emphasis includes improved pedestrian visibility at night with sponsorship of materials from 

3M/Scotchlite.

Public accessibility to crash data has been enhanced with two on-line products now available.

A new SHSP is planned for 2017, with edits well underway.

Fatalities did rise for a second year in the state after reaching a 70 year low in 2014. Pedestrian fatalities 

remain high for a second year, helping drive the pedestrian outreach effort noted above.

In developing a list of priority intersection locations to evaluate, MaineDOT has utilized the Highway Safety 

Manual (HSM) to prioritize locations. This new analytical approach appears to be a good way to identify 

probable locations that should be field evaluated for safety mitigation.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 65

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. 

Maine's HSIP structure has several facets that together build a comprehensive safety strategy

• One person is dedicated to identifying specific locations of need, primarily intersections, and as noted 

above, the primary tool being used this year for initial system-wide screening is the highway safety 

manual.

• A wide variety of resources within MaineDOT are contacted to generate safety project needs including 

Regional Operations, Local Roads, Bike/Ped, Traffic Engineering

• There is a Highway Safety Group within MaineDOT that has a cross representation of DOT functional 

areas that meets regularly and one of the tasks is to drive toward identifying work projects that fit 

leading areas of concern.

• There also is an executive level Safety network that may identify program needs.

• MaineDOT's Safety Office is the coordinating point of all of this activity.

• MaineDOT holds regional planning meetings to finalize Departmental needs, including safety and 

makes sure that related work projects are synchronized.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Safety Office

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Safety Office is ultimate clearing house, Planning completes the hot spot location list.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Other-Use Benefit Cost Criteria

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 65

Funding allocation is a collective effort between MaineDOT executive leadership and the Highway Safety 

Committee as part of the annual workplan process. Discussion takes place at the committee level to determine 

appropriate allocation percentages for spot improvement projects, systemic improvement projects, and 

programmatic opportunities. The goal is to reach a strategic balance that aligns with the SHSP focus areas. The 

funding approach looks to mix spot improvements with systemic needs, programmatic opportunities and 

reaching strategic balance in use of available funds.

MPO/RPO are using their departmentally allocated funds (not HSIP, but general state allocations). This past 

planning period, MPO/RPOs were asked to focus on addressing high crash locations. Any priority needs could 

either be funded through MPO/RPO state funding or if they qualify, through the benefit/cost driven HSIP 

process.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.

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

for Local roads and so is able to evaluate all locations within the state based on similar crash and benefit/cost 

performance comparisons. Local requests are also receieved based on crash concerns and are reviewed as 

part of the candidate screening process.

Maine does now have an on-line crash data access system available to them to help with local analysis - and 

MPOs/RPOs have utilized this tool and praise its capabilities.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-MPO/RPO; Bike/Pedestrian are being better integrated

Other-Environmental

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 65

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Executive, Planning (including local roads and bike/ped), Traffic Engineering, Project Development, all play a 

part in safety planning. MaineDOT continues to enhance its Work Plan approach to integrate safety into the 

planning process, looking to get safety in the planning thought process early on to consider not just standalone safety needs, but also opportunities that would complement upcoming paving and construction 

projects. Safety Office is able to review corridor project candidates in advance to identify safety needs that 

might align with other work. Broadly distributed solicitations to internal contacts are sent out several times 

during the planning process and generate safety improvement opportunities.

A Highway Safety Group has been established that includes a wide operational representation and FHWA 

presence to look at overall state safety needs, funding philosophy and systemic opportunities. This group has 

embraced the systemic approach.

MaineDOT Regions have been very involved with Centerline Rumble Strip strategies, corridor reviews and 

project implementation.

A strong partnership between Bike/Ped Coordinator and Safety Office is established to kick off the state's 

Pedestrian outreach program.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency

FHWA

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with external partners.

MaineDOT Safety Office has continuing communications and good relationships with all State, local and

Federal partners. In addition, we regularly work with AAA, Maine Transport Association, Maine Turnpike, 

Bicycle Coalition of Maine, United Bikers of Maine (motorcycles) and others. We look for input from all and 

communicate out to them when needed.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 65

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

HSM is being used as a desktop screening tool to identify intersection candidates that should be further 

evaluated.

An executive safety has been established to get further feedback on statewide safety needs.

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

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

Continue to seek to balance funding of spot improvements where crash history has been clearly a problem (this 

has often been concentrated on intersections) with systemic opprtunities related to Lane Departure mitigations 

and other core safety target areas. An ongoing challenge, as one example, is creating an equitable allocation for 

Bike/Ped needs.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

We have an old process document, and following MaineDOT's Work Plan/Budget process this fall, we look to 

update and more fully document the HSIP process.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety

Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 65

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash

Shoulder Improvement

Segments

Other-Median Cable Barrier -install completed in 2014

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-As speci

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 65

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Bicycle projects are not often funded in HSP, but handled through other fund sources. Fund allocations are 

being re-evaluated.

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Being evaluated as a systemic need

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Highway Corridor Priority 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 65

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Systemic approach being used to identify corridors of most exposure

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

This area too may fall under more of a systemic identification and prioritization.

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 65

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-MaineDOT's Highway 

Corridor Priority classifications 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-HSM-based screenings

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

This HSM-based effort has several screening steps. It does look at Actual, Predicted and Expected crash 

outcome data.

Program: Left Turn Crash 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 65

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Part of instresection strategy along with center left turn lane considerations.

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost prioritization

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 65

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

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? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 65

selection committee

Other-Usually work with MaineDOT's Local Roads unit

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 65

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Available funding : 2

Cost Effectiveness : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Low cost projects could come under many of the categories included in this question's PROGRAM listing

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Systemic need

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Other-limited access highway Median width 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Probability of specific crash types
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 65

Other-Risk factors noted above.

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

No

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Available funding : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Medians 50' wide and narrower were addressed.

MaineDOT's executives agreed that this was a priority area.

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Allocations will be determined through Departmental discussions

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 65

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-These projects are normally coordinated through MaineDOT's Bike/Ped coordinator

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

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

A focused, multi-agency effort has been in progress for a couple of years and with firm strategies executed in 

2017 and will continue.

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 65

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Part of Intersection strategies

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 65

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Systemic funding - such as for centerline rumble strips

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Posted speed limit 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Systemic for both Head On and Went Off Road (WOR). Curves will be focus for WOR

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 65

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Rural State Highways 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Largely lane departure issues.

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 65

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Often lane departure issues

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 65

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 65

Other-Often associated with lane departure, but could also relate to bike and pedestrian needs

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 65

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 65

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

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Lane departure related

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 65

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Other-Median Cable Barrier -install 

completed in 2014 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Department saw this as a systemic need.

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Median width 

Other-Limited access roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Probability of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 65

No

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Available funding : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

MaineDOT had an aggressive plan to have median cable barrier and extensions to existing w-beam installations 

to be placed over several successive years.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Safety Edge

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Wrong way driving treatments

Other-Wrong Way Driver interstate ramp improvements, rapid flashing beacons for ped crossings, 

Other-Went Off Road - curves

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 65

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)

Stakeholder input

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

We try to include all reasonable inputs to determine appropriate potential countermeasures. Use of HSM has 

expanded in 2017.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

This area continues to expand.

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.

Right now, focus in on system-wide intersection analysis, but expect the approach developed for intersections 

will expand to other infrastructure reviews.

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

Noted HSM application is the main change to note.

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 65

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $12,441,250 $12,887,620 103.59%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $4,250 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$1,080,000 $162,930 15.09%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $13,521,250 $13,054,800 96.55%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 65

0%

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

0%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

None. MaineDOT Safety Office continues to work with internal and external partners to coordinate and 

integrate safety. This process continues to be enhanced over time.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

Maine's leading crash exposure continues to be Lane Departure, experiencing 70% of state-wide fatalities in 

this category. 

Head-on fatalities have stabilized. Systemic opportunities are being evaluated to achieve a better funding mix 

that is reflective of SHSP priorities. In 2015 there was an increase in installations on centerline rumble strips -

90 miles planned then, compared to the 60 miles that existed on non-interstate road installations completed 

since 2006. In 2016, 150 more miles were installed, and a similar # of miles planned for later in 2017. 2016 was 

the first year where we faced a number of public noise-related concerns. We will be piloting another 

sinusoidal style installation this year. Additional rumble strip opportunities are anticipated for future planning 

years, but won't be as high as current levels.

Although not necessarily directly translating to HSIP funding, but certainly contributing to safety 

planning, there is continued dialogue with MPO's/RPO's on local safety needs and a cooperative approach on 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 65

safety performance target setting. MPO's have focused more on high crash location mitigation in 2017. 

Pedestrian traffic fatalities are still a concern and a focused outreach program has been developed as a result. 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 65

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

016336.16 Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Signs $20000 $26190 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban & Rural 

local roads

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Signs

016336.17 Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Signs $20000 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban & Rural 

local roads

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Signs

016336.18 Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Signs $20000 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban & Rural 

local roads

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Signs

018893.18 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Signs $45000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban & Rural 

local roads

0 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Upgraded signs 

will address 

various SHSP 

areas.

Municipal 

Outreach

020485.10 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 1 Crosswalks $420036.96 $422000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,910 30 Other State 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Sidewalk

020541.18 Non-infrastructure Educational efforts 1 Numbers $36000 $40000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

All road classes 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Work Zones Work Zone Safety 

Media Outreach 

that addresses 

speed and 

distraction

020581.18 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Lanes $5600000 $7000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Statewide striping 

to make 

travelway more 

visible and 

mitigate lane 

departure

021660.00 Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Over height vehicle detection 1 Signs $40500 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

13,546 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Commercial 

vehicles

Install OH 

collision warning 

system that 

prevents 

commercial 

vehicle crashes 

and mitigates 

need for incident 

management and 

secondary 

crashes.

021661.00 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 1 Crosswalks $17600 $151000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

2,097 25 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Bicyclists Design and 

construct a new 

sidewalk

021663.00 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

375 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Roadway and 

Intersection 

Safety 

Improvements

021664.00 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $1188000 $1320000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

16,360 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reconstruct 

Intersection
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 65

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

021781.00 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

1 Intersections $36000 $40000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

2,704 40 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Install flashing 

stop signs. 

Remove existing 

OH beacons.

021783.00 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $108000 $120000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

14,249 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

redesign to 

improve safety

021793.00 Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1 Lanes $108000 $120000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

5,061 35 State Aid Spot Lane Departure High friction 

surface treatment

021796.00 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Signs $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

5,070 35 State Aid Spot Addresses a 

variety of SHSP 

areas: speed 

mgmt, 

intersections, 

lane departure.

Signs

21800 Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

1 Numbers $13500 $15000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Defensive Driving 

Training CY 2017

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Local Roads Municipal 

Defensive Driving 

Training Y 2017

021800.18 Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

1 Numbers $13500 $15000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Municipal 

Defensive Driving 

Training (2018)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Local Roads Municipal 

Defensive Driving 

Training (2018)

21817 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at non-intersection location

1 Crosswalks $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Provide 

Rectangular 

Rapid Flashing 

Beacons for 

Crosswalks

021821.00 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

1 Intersections $41400 $46000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

2,790 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

intersection 

visibility. Install 

OH Flashing 

Beacons.

021840.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $54000 $60000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,860 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Improvements

021841.00 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,860 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

021844.00 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Approaches $45000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zone Safety 

Media Outreach

021848.00 Roadway Rumble strips - center 1 Lanes $653963.13 $726625.7 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Rumble Strips

021849.00 Roadway Rumble strips - center 1 Lanes $46800 $52000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Rumble Strips

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 65

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 155 159 161 136 164 145 131 156 160

Serious Injuries 869 732 782 895 982 865 815 754 746

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.070 1.100 1.110 0.951 1.140 1.010 0.913 1.050 1.070

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.980 5.050 5.370 6.260 6.830 6.010 5.680 5.080 4.980

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

17 13 13 11 10 15 11 19 21

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

62 61 52 81 101 59 88 64 72
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 65

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 65

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Year 2016

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 -

Interstate

5.2 39.4 0.23 1.74

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

25.6 94.8 1.39 5.11

Rural Minor Arterial 23.8 106.4 1.37 6.14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 65

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 Minor Collector 11.2 60.2 1.36 7.29

Rural Major Collector 29.4 147.8 1.33 6.66

Rural Local Road or Street 25 113.4 1.73 7.85

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

2.6 22.4 0.26 2.22

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0.2 8.2 0.12 4.97

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

6 60.2 0.86 8.63

Urban Minor Arterial 7.2 84.8 0.72 8.56

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 6.4 58 0.67 6.07

Urban Local Road or Street 3.8 29.6 0.86 6.69
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 65

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 81.8 478.2 0.96 5.59

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

28.6 140.2 1.58 7.72

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 2.6 16 0.19 1.16

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

State Aid 34.2 194.4 1.22 6.93
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 65

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 65

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 65

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 65

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 65

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 65

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

Key areas for Maine are Lane Departure (both head on and went off road) and pedestrians. Motorcycle fatalities 

which had increased sharply in 2015 have moderated to an average performance level in 2016.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 153.4 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 65

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

There are some positive and negative influencers along with assumptions at play in the 

near future that will limit what improvement can be expected: • Economy and fuel 

prices remain fairly stable at current levels. • Multi-agency safety efforts will continue 

to be refined and focused on primary serious crash trends such as lane departure and 

pedestrians. • Based on recruitment difficulties along with state and local budgetary 

restraints, law enforcement agencies will continue to experience staffing challenges, 

reducing the effective crash-reducing impact that their on-road presence has. • 

Impaired driving is a growing concern both due to legalization of marijuana and 

increased illicit drug. That growing impairment problem translates to serious crash 

exposures. • Maine’s VMT will continue to increase due to economic factors cited. 

This increases traffic exposure and in some situations, may decrease the level of 

service on high volume roads. Maine’s Safety Performance Targets support the goals 

of the SHSP. With the recent trend of increasing fatalities both in Maine and 

nationwide, our goal is to first stabilize that trend and subsequently return to an overall 

reduction 

Number of Serious Injuries 763.0 

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

There are some positive and negative influencers along with assumptions at play in the 

near future that will limit what improvement can be expected: • Economy and fuel 

prices remain fairly stable at current levels. • Multi-agency safety efforts will continue 

to be refined and focused on primary serious crash trends such as lane departure and 

pedestrians. • Based on recruitment difficulties along with state and local budgetary 

restraints, law enforcement agencies will continue to experience staffing challenges, 

reducing the effective crash-reducing impact that their on-road presence has. • 

Impaired driving is a growing concern both due to legalization of marijuana and 

increased illicit drug. That growing impairment problem translates to serious crash 

exposures. • Maine’s VMT will continue to increase due to economic factors cited. 

This increases traffic exposure and in some situations, may decrease the level of 

service on high volume roads. Maine's target is looking for a moderate improvement 

in the number of serious injuries. 

Fatality Rate 1.030 

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

There are some positive and negative influencers along with assumptions at play in the 

near future that will limit what improvement can be expected: • Economy and fuel 

prices remain fairly stable at current levels. • Multi-agency safety efforts will continue 

to be refined and focused on primary serious crash trends such as lane departure and 

pedestrians. • Based on recruitment difficulties along with state and local budgetary 

restraints, law enforcement agencies will continue to experience staffing challenges, 

reducing the effective crash-reducing impact that their on-road presence has. • 

Impaired driving is a growing concern both due to legalization of marijuana and 

increased illicit drug. That growing impairment problem translates to serious crash 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 65

exposures. • Maine’s VMT will continue to increase due to economic factors cited. 

This increases traffic exposure and in some situations, may decrease the level of 

service on high volume roads. Maine’s Safety Performance Targets support the goals 

of the SHSP. With the recent trend of increasing fatalities both in Maine and 

nationwide, our goal is to first stabilize that trend and subsequently return to an overall 

reduction 

Serious Injury Rate 5.120 

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

There are some positive and negative influencers along with assumptions at play in the 

near future that will limit what improvement can be expected: • Economy and fuel 

prices remain fairly stable at current levels. • Multi-agency safety efforts will continue 

to be refined and focused on primary serious crash trends such as lane departure and 

pedestrians. • Based on recruitment difficulties along with state and local budgetary 

restraints, law enforcement agencies will continue to experience staffing challenges, 

reducing the effective crash-reducing impact that their on-road presence has. • 

Impaired driving is a growing concern both due to legalization of marijuana and 

increased illicit drug. That growing impairment problem translates to serious crash 

exposures. • Maine’s VMT will continue to increase due to economic factors cited. 

This increases traffic exposure and in some situations, may decrease the level of 

service on high volume roads. Maine expects to see a reduction in the serious injury 

rate in line with its SHSP targets. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 90.0 

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

We look to reverse increasing trend. A significant Pedestrian Safety Public Outreach 

effort is underway that is aimed at reducing pedestrian crashes and their resulting 

fatalities and injuries. Maine’s Safety Performance Targets support the goals of the 

SHSP. With the recent trend of increasing pedestrian fatalities both in Maine and 

nationwide, our goal is to first stabilize that trend and subsequently return to an overall 

reduction. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

targets. 

ALL stakeholders (MPOs, Maine Bureau of Highway Safety (BHS), NHTSA, FHWA, MaineDOT) attended 

a safety performance targets setting work shop. From there, Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, NHTSA, 

FHWA, MaineDOT - all communicated together to arrive at agreed upon goals. BHS has reported identical 

targets in their recently submitted HSP.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 65

MaineDOT has met with MPO's to discuss MPO target setting philosophy which boils down to expectation that 

MPO performance improvements will be at the same increments as state-wide targets based on 2016 

benchmarks for each MPO. Those draft targets have been established and are first being reviewed internally 

here at MaineDOT and are planned to be sent out to each MPO at the end of this week.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

23 27 19 25 29 25 26

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

71 69 79 94 89 74 70
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 65

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 65

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

Maine's fatalities have increased in the last two years after reaching a 70-year low in 2014. Performance there is 

not good. 

Serious injury rate is making progress.

Benefit-Cost performance on mitigations has been good.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Policy change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

Other-Pedestrian Strategic Focus Outcomes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

MaineDOT will be monitoring Pedestrian Safety Performance as a result of its focused outreach efforts that are 

underway now.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Yes

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

There is an exec level safety group that's meeting to solicit input from additional stakeholders.

There is a significant pedestrian safety strategic effort underway 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 65

Systemic opportunities continue to be sought, with went off road the next area of opportunity.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure All 104.2 443.8 0.71 3.04

Intersections All 19.6 193.2 0.13 1.32

Pedestrians All 13 58.4 0.08 0.4

Bicyclists All 2.2 26.2 0.01 0.19

Older Drivers All 38.8 176.6 0.25 1.22

Motorcyclists All 19.6 132.8 0.13 0.9
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 65

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 65

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Rumble Strip Effectiveness 

Description: 

Since 2006, Maine has increasingly 

installed centerline rumble strips on 

higher volume, higher speed high 

priority road classes. 

Target Crash Type: Head on 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 55 miles evaluated, nearly 300 miles 

installed totally 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Other (define) 

Results: 

Head On Fatalities down 90%. This is 

a high improvement. Since early 

installation corridors were those 

having significant crash problems, 

this rate of improvement will be 

higher initially and will likely 

moderate with time.

Head On crash reductions about 40%. 

Significant injuries are flat.

Some improvements seen also in 

Went Off Road Crashes.

File Name: RScorridorperfAug_2016_FINAL.docx
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 65

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Kittery Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

10.00 16.00 2.00 3.00 12.00 19.00 1.60

Standish Major Urban 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

7.00 8.00 4.00 7.00 12.00 -0.62

Trenton Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

3.00 9.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 13.00 -0.49

Blue Hill Major Urban 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

5.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 11.00 4.00 1.42

Eddington Major Urban 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

6.00 7.00 3.00 2.00 9.00 9.00 0.15

Orono Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

8.00 6.00 5.00 13.00 6.00 0.41

Scarborough Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

16.00 18.00 4.00 8.00 20.00 26.00 -3.91

Preque Isle Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway - other 2.00 2.00 0.38

Berwick, N 

Berwick

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

55.00 61.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 4.00 45.00 28.00 109.00 94.00 94.65

Auburn Major Urban 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

8.00 12.00 2.00 1.00 10.00 13.00 0.41

Lewiston Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

274.00 321.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 94.00 96.00 376.00 427.00 10.59

AugustaVassalboroRural Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

6.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 11.00 11.50

Waldo Major Urban 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

7.00 8.00 4.00 2.00 11.00 10.00 16.37

Madison Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

3.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 7.00 -1.51
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 65

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Bangor Major Urban 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

13.00 19.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 20.00 25.00 86.74

Burnham Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

10.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 15.00 7.00 8.25

Brunswick Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

114.00 125.00 4.00 3.00 43.00 38.00 161.00 166.00 2.74

Bangor Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Roadway - other 117.00 80.00 1.00 2.00 39.00 33.00 157.00 115.00 0.34

Rockland Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

3.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 2.87

Brewer Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

9.00 12.00 3.00 5.00 12.00 17.00 -6.97

Smyrna Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Roadway - other 3.00 7.00 2.00 5.00 7.00 2.06

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The above just reflects projects that have specific defined location-based projects (signing, striping, line striping projects not included in this list)

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 65

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/22/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2016

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

 2018

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Last question above does not have 2017 as an option. Maine's plan is to have our next SHSP out in 2017.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE 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) 100 100
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 65

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 100 100

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)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 65

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

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):

100.00 100.00 25.00 25.00 81.82 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

While there may be zero's entered in some areas above, MaineDOT does, in fact, have the core of the necessary required info in our data, but may have certain characteristics of those MIRE elements that we look to enhance so they fully 

meet MIRE descriptions. For example, for INTERSECTIONS - the UNIQUE JUNCTION IDENTIFIER... MaineDOT does currently have a NODE/ELEMENT identifier for all roads. 

But we know that as we are updating our systems, these elements may be enhanced. Those '0' FDE's, even though they are largely in place, we are showing 0% just as an internal reminder to review. 

The one element that needs to be newly developed is Unique Interchange Identifier (178).

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.

MaineDOT has a limited number of outstanding MIRE needs. 

Developing the unique interchange identifier (#178) is still under discussion. 

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 65

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form A Injury - Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injuriy No Includes:

Severe Laceration, Broken of Distorted 

Limb, Skull or Chest Injury

Abdominal Injury, Unconciousness at or 

when taken from the crash scene, Unable 

to leave the crash scene without 

assistance.

No NA No

Crash Database A Injury - Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary A injury = Incapactating Injury No (From metadata)

A Inj: Person had a bleeding wound, had a 

distorted member, or had to be carried from 

the scene.

No See above No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

MaineDOT, Maine Bureau of Highway Safety and Maine State Police are all working together to bring crash reports and related documentation into compliance with MMUCC 4th edition definition.

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

Completed in May 2017 - here are core findings.

Noteworthy Practices:

• Data: Maine has an abundance of available safety data for all public roads.

• Highway Safety Manual: Maine is a lead state in using the Highway Safety Manual.

• Coordination: MaineDOT’s “Synergy” meetings provide an opportunity for the state to leverage resources and incorporate safety into all aspects of the work plan.

• Collaboration: MaineDOT’s Highway Safety Committee allows internal staff to collaborate proactively across institutional boundaries on emerging safety issues.

Recommendations:

1. Develop comprehensive safety program documentation.

2. Integrate the SHSP into investment decision making.

3. Establish a process to ensure all safety improvement projects compete against each other for HSIP funds.

4. Consider succession planning and reorganization as HSIP staff with institutional knowledge leave MaineDOT.

5. Incorporate horizontal curve, super-elevation, and grade data into safety data systems.

6. Regularly evaluate all completed HSIP funded projects.
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 64 of 65

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

RScorridorperfAug_2016_FINAL.docx

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 65 of 65

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 non-infrastructure 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.