Page 1 of 62

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 62

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 28

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

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 30

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 32

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 32

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 45

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 48

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 50

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 50

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 51

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 51

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 55

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 57
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 62

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.” 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 62

Executive Summary 

The overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. The infrastructure-related 

projects are selected and justified by proven data-driven approaches. All highway safety improvement projects 

should be chosen and implemented with the goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on public roads and 

the achievement of state safety targets. Some projects will directly impact these performance measures 

through the implementation of engineering countermeasures, while others may advance the data systems and 

analysis capabilities of the state to more accurately identify locations with the highest potential for safety 

improvements, evaluate the performance of highway safety improvement projects, or identify high risk roadway 

characteristics and driver behaviors.

In 2006, FHWA established a new approach to advancing safety by focusing on performance. In order to 

effectively meet performance targets, States must apply limited resources to the areas that are most likely to 

achieve results. The requirement to develop and regularly update a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

ensures that this approach is maintained. NH annually tracks and reports performance measures including the 

numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries. Several other performance measures of specific interest to 

the State are listed in the NH SHSP.

New Hampshire has embraced the goals and vision of the national Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. The 

State named its SHSP New Hampshire Driving Toward Zero in recognition of the national plan, and created a 

public outreach program with the same name to promote change in New Hampshire's safety culture 

(nhdtz.com). The initiative recognizes that even one traffic death is unacceptable and sets the aggressive goal 

of reducing all deaths on the nation's highways, a goal virtually achieved in the aviation industry in the past 

several decades. Dozens of public and private stakeholders from across the State have come together in a 

collaborative effort to update and carry out the strategies in the SHSP. The vision of Driving Toward Zero is 

embodied in NH's goal of reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries by 50% by 2030, equaling an 

annual reduction of 3.4%. This is measured as a five-year rolling average with the most recent data. Maine and 

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

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

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

the agency.

The concept of a focused approach has been further reinforced with requirements for data-driven decision 

making and resource allocation. 23 USC 148(c)(2), as amended by 1401(a)(1) of SAFETEA-LU, Identification 

and Analysis of Highway Safety Problems and Opportunities, delineates specific requirements for identifying 

safety problems and evaluating countermeasures. NHDOT has implemented the guidelines of the Highway 

Safety Manual (HSM), part D, in the selection and evaluation of safety improvements.

Map 21 and the FAST ACT continue building on the concept of a safety data system that has the capability to 

identify key safety problems, establish their relative severity, and then adopt strategic and performance based 

goals to maximize safety. Recent improvements to the NH data system include a phased initiative to 

implement electronic crash reporting through the State's Crash Report Management System (CRMS), the 

compilation of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE), and the 

completion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Traffic Records Assessment. One 

of the key findings of the Traffic Records Assessment was that performance measures for data quality are 

needed, including measures of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration and accessibility in 

order to guide improvements to the data and data systems. In 2017 the NH Department of Safety, Division of 

Motor Vehicles, introduced a new comprehensive database, known as VISION, for the management of crash 

data.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 62

The States are required to define a clear linkage between the behavioral NHTSA-funded Highway Safety 

Program and the HSIP through the State SHSP. The 2012 version (2nd edition) of the NH SHSP identified nine 

critical emphasis areas (CEA) to be addressed by safety stakeholders in NH, listed below. In 2014, the 

Education and Public Outreach committee was created thus forming the tenth CEA. This committee has

developed documentation that states the challenge, primary focus, and goals for this new emphasis area.

Distracted Driving

Impaired Driving

Speeding

Vehicle Occupant Protection

Teen Traffic Safety

Older Drivers

Vulnerable Roadway Users

Comprehensive Safety Data Improvement

Crash Locations

Education and Public Outreach

The 4 E's of safety (education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency medical services) should be 

considered in the selection and development of HSIP projects, however the primary intent of the HSIP is to 

target engineering improvements to infrastructure. The crash types of special interest have been identified in 

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

10 CEAs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

purpose in NH.

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

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

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

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

separate funding for safety projects and with FHWA's long-standing position on the use of safety funds.

Crash data in this report reflect 2017 crash data (except where noted) for consistency with the annual Highway 

Safety Plan prepared by the NH Office of Highway Safety and submitted to NHTSA.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 62

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

Rail & Transit, and Planning; RPCs, MPOs, municipalities, and the FHWA NH Division. The monthly committee 

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

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

Transportation Improvement Plan development. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Design

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

HSIP managed by Safety Section within Bureau of Highway Design.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

Annual funding is apportioned to improvements of individual locations selected by screening, to systemic 

improvements, and to road safety audits.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 62

Municipally-maintained local roads and intersections are included in the screening with State-maintained sites 

and are evaluated using the same methodology. Traffic data are not available for the majority of rural collector 

or rural and urban local roads (functional class 8, 9, and 19), and therefore the volumes are estimated based 

on similar roads that have measured data. Urban and rural local roads are categorized separately from the 

other functional classes in network screening to account for the lower reliability of this estimated volume data. 

The State is working to improve volume data on all public roads.

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-Administration

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The State’s HSIP is centrally administered. Historically, the Bureau of Highway Design has performed

statewide network screening of crashes on all roadway types. However, due to staff attrition and the resulting 

loss of data analysis expertise, the NHDOT has been limited in its ability to perform this rigorous network 

screening and has modified its procedures accordingly. As a result the NHDOT now selects candidates for 

improvement using historical network screening results which are then corroborated with current crash data. 

While still a data-driven approach to project identification and selection, this method is more 'naive' and less 

rigorous than desired. The candidate locations are then disseminated to the NHDOT's safety partners via the 

HSIP Committee for review and comment. For all the candidate locations, the Committee will consider the 

scope and cost of the anticipated improvements in relation to the overall program funding constraints, and the 

improvement's expected benefit/cost ratio. Candidates not selected into the HSIP may be recommended for 

consideration via other funding programs. 

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

undergoing reorganization, which includes the creation of a Safety Section tasked with administering the HSIP 

including the selection, evaluation, and delivery of infrastructure safety projects, and stewardship of the SHSP. 

This will enhance the NHDOT's safety capabilities by expanding upon our staff focused on this core federal 

program. The Safety Section is working with the assistance of the FHWA NH Division to regain and sustain the 

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Regional Planning Organizations (e.g. MPOs, RPOs, COGs) 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 62

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

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

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

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.

The NHDOT Bureau of Highway Design is undergoing reorganization, one result of which will be the creation 

of a Safety Section tasked with administering the HSIP including the selection, evaluation, and delivery of 

infrastructure safety projects, and stewardship of the SHSP. This will enhance the NHDOT's safety capabilities 

by expanding upon our staff focused on this core federal program. The new Safety Section will also work 

closely with FHWA to develop and sustain the data analysis capabilities needed to support our HSIP.

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. 

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

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

NHTSA or other public or private entities.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 62

File Name:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve 

Bicycle Safety

Rural State Highways

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash

Shoulder Improvement

Segments

HRRR

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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 

Other-EPDO 

Traffic 

Volume Other-Site Subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 62

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

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-HSIP Committee evaluation

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [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 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Site Subtype 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 62

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 62

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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]
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 62

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Functional classification 

Other-Run Off the Road Volume Other-Site Subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Left Turn Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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]
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 62

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 62

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Other-RSA local agency

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 62

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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-RSA request from local agencies

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 62

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 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

No

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

no medians on local roads 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Pedestrian Safety 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 62

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments 

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.

no medians on local roads 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Ranking based on B/C : 50 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 62

Available funding : 50 

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

no medians on local roads 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 62

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [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 

Other-EPDO 

Traffic 

Volume Other-Site Subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

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

Yes

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

No

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 62

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Rural State Highways 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [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 Traffic Horizontal curvature 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 62

selection committee

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume 

Median width 

Other-Site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

EPDO
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 62

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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 Roadside features 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

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?
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 62

Yes

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Run Off the Road 

Traffic 

Volume Other-site subtype 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-Run off the Road 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 62

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.

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

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

Sign replacements and improvements are implemented regionally so the annual set-aside varies depending on 

which geographic region is selected for improvement.

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.

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

Other-Median barriers - cable and other types

Other-Guardrail - replacement of deficient terminal units

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 62

Installation of retroreflective backplates on State-owned signals is underway; similar municipal initiative is 

planned.

Conversion of signalized permissive left turn signals to flashing yellow arrows is planned for both State-owned 

and municipal signals.

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

Engineering Study 

Rumble Strips

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Install/Improve Signing

Stakeholder input 

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

NHDOT has not begun to implement specific infrastructure improvements to support connected vehicles and 

emerging ITS technologies.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

The NHDOT uses the Highway Safety Manual, Part D, to support our project selection and evaluation of 

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

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

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

(greater than 1.0) can be sustained.

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

period?

No
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 62

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

Yes

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

The NHDOT Bureau of Highway Design is undergoing reorganization, one result of which will be the creation 

of a Safety Section tasked with administering the HSIP including the selection, evaluation, and delivery of 

infrastructure safety projects, and stewardship of the SHSP. This will enhance the NHDOT's safety capabilities 

by expanding upon our staff focused on this core federal program. The new Safety Section will also work 

closely with FHWA to develop and sustain the data analysis capabilities needed to support our HSIP.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 62

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal 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) $9,401,955 $7,265,909 77.28%

HRRR Special 

148(g)(1))

Rule (23 U.S.C. $79,532 $79,532 100%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

STBG, NHPP)

(i.e. $0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $9,481,487 $7,345,441 77.47%

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.

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

been established.

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

$400,000 

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 62

$433,400 

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

This programmed figure is not a set-aside and varies annually depending on the priorities. Recent noninfrastructure safety projects included road safety audits, a speed study, and an evaluation of the NHDOT's 

rumble strip policy and design standards.

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.

NHDOT does not transfer funds into or out of HSIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

expanded safety program.

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. 

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

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

CMFs provides a data driven process for selecting and evaluating countermeasures.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 62

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

Swanzey 40485 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $27500 $27500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,400 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reducing 

intersection 

crashes

PelhamChesterfield 

29338

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

2 Intersections $11000 $11000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audits

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Farmington 

16212

Roadway Roadway - restripe to revise 

separation between opposing 

lanes and/or shoulder widths 

0.6 Miles $1765951 $1765951 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

17,900 40 State Highway 

Agency

Road safety audit Lane Departure Pavement 

markings

Statewide 41338 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

192 Intersections $115500 $115500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reducing 

intersection 

crashes

Ossipee 29315 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,820 35 State Highway 

Agency

Road safety audit Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Derry 24861 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $181500 $181500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,400 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Peterborough 

15698

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

1 Intersections $79200 $79200 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

10,500 50 State Highway 

Agency

Road safety audit Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

LancasterShelburne 41204Roadside Barrier- metal 4.6 Miles $1323930 $1323930 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reducing lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 41418 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

1 Intersections $16500 $16500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Road safety audit Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 40803 Roadside Barrier- metal 3.4 Miles $165000 $165000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes

Brookline 41489 Speed 

management

Speed management - other 6.8 Miles $22000 $22000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection and 

lane departure 

crashes

CanterburyNorthfield 41057Roadside Barrier- metal 6.7 Miles $1182500 $3909037 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

16,800 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes

Claremont 25621 Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

2 Access points $33000 $55000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

20,900 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Road safety audit Intersections reduce 

intersection 

crashes

District Three 

24863

Roadside Barrier- metal 2.9 Miles $998739 $998739 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

reduce lane 

departure 

crashes
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 62

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

Henniker 28735 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $315 $85556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Road safety audit Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 40604 Roadside Barrier- metal 3.4 Miles $962224 $962224 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 40864 Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 4 Locations $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 40913 Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Data Develop strategic 

plan for data 

improvements 

and analysis tools

Statewide 40921 Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 5 Locations $11000 $11000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 40922 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

100 Intersections $429989 $429989 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 41269 Roadside Barrier- metal 2.9 Miles $181500 $181500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 41280 Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Update Strategic 

Highway Safety 

Plan

$20900 $20900 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Program support Relates to all 

emphasis areas 

of SHSP

Statewide 41283 Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 2 Locations $93500 $93500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Road safety 

audits

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Tilton 29358 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

1 Intersections $11000 $11000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

11,000 40 State Highway 

Agency

Road safety audit Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Keene 26765 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $260828 $260828 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

21,570 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Brookline 40092 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $548256 $548256 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,800 50 State Highway 

Agency

Road safety audit Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 28137 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

$39286 $39286 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce lane 

departure 

crashes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 62

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 110 128 90 108 135 95 114 136 102

Serious Injuries 667 528 462 623 489 451 459 477 410

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.848 0.980 0.708 0.838 1.046 0.732 0.871 1.009 0.746

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.141 4.041 3.632 4.832 3.790 3.477 3.505 3.540 2.997

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

9 9 9 9 17 16 13 21 14

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

35 32 43 50 40 37 53 42 40
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 62

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 62

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

For the period of 2008 to 2010 the annual serious injury numbers are values NHDOT used in previous reports, 

which do not match the values reported by the Office of Highway Safety in 2008 because in those three years 

OHS was incorrectly reporting all injuries rather than only serious injuries. NHDOT serious injury values do 

match the OHS for period of 2011 to 2016 because in these reports the OHS excluded the prior incorrect 

values.

Data sources are prescribed by the regulations:

Fatalities: NHTSA

Rate of Fatalities (HMVMT): NHTSA & HPMS

Serious Injuries: NH Department of Safety (NHDOS)

Rate of Serious Injuries (HMVMT): NHDOS & HPMS

Non Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries: NHTSA & NHDOS

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

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

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

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

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

Motor Vehicle's VISION database and provided to the NHDOT. The VISION system is newly implemented and 

its 2017 data has been corroborated and approved for use. Sufficient annual data is available (via VISION and 

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

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 62

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

standardize the definition and proper classification of serious injuries.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

1 0.09

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

2.4 0.23

Rural Minor Arterial 1 0.09

Rural Minor Collector 0.6 0.12

Rural Major Collector 2.8 0.26

Rural Local Road or Street 2.2 0.58

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

2 0.1

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

1 0.07

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

3.2 0.24

Urban Minor Arterial 1.2 0.07

Urban Minor Collector 0.2

Urban Major Collector 0.8 0.09

Urban Local Road or Street 2 0.24
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 62

Year 2017

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 16 39.4 0.15 0.37

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

2 19 0.12 1.16

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

2.4 15.6 0.16 1.05

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 62

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 62

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 62

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 62

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 62

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

2017 serious injury data is not yet available. Due to the NH Department of Safety's migration from their former 

crash records database (known as CRMS) to a new MMUCC-compliant system (known as VISION), 

geolocated serious injury data is not available for querying by functional classification. The NHDOT is confident 

that this data will be available for the FY2018 reporting, at which time any missing 2017 data will be completed.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 116.4 

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

Trend analysis of the fatalities data produces mostly intuitive results. The 2017 five 

year averages are 116.4 fatalities and 0.881 fatalities per HMVMT. Fatalities in the 

Page 45 of 62
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 62

last decade have shown wide variation over a one to two year cycle, with the number 

of 2017 fatalities being near the minimum for the decade. The five year average of the 

number of fatalities also dropped from 2016 to 2017, yet the trend line predicts a slight 

increase in fatalities for 2019. The annual fatalities rates and the five year averages 

mimic the same patterns seen in the numbers of fatalities, but the computed trend line 

shows a slight reduction in the 2019 target value as compared to the 2017 value. A 

2019 target of 116.4 fatalities (i.e., maintaining the 2017 five-year average) is 

recommended for the following reasons. First, adopting a rising target as computed by 

the trend line would be contrary to the purpose of the HSIP and the Departments’ 

ambitions of achieving performance improvements. Second, analysis of the annual 

data indicates that next year’s five-year average computation will replace the 

statistically high year of 2013 with a possibly lower data point for 2018. 

Number of Serious Injuries 433.2 

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

The number and rate of serious injuries dropped by 17 and 18 percent in 2017, 

respectively. The resulting trend analysis computed 2019 targets representing 4.1% 

and 4.6% annual reductions, respectively, from the 2017 five year averages. The 

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

period (prior to 2017). Sustaining this dramatic improvement in performance is 

difficult to justify absent any major identifiable contributing factors. A 2019 target of 

433.2 serious injuries is recommended as it would be a more achievable goal 

consistent with the observed safety performance in recent years. This target represents 

an annual reduction in the five year average of 2.7%. The target for number of serious 

injuries has been computed by assuming the crash performance seen in 2017 is 

repeated in 2018 and 2019. 

Fatality Rate 0.879 

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

Trend analysis of the fatalities data produces mostly intuitive results. The 2017 five 

year averages are 116.4 fatalities and 0.881 fatalities per HMVMT. Fatalities in the 

last decade have shown wide variation over a one to two year cycle, with the number 

of 2017 fatalities being near the minimum for the decade. The five year average of the 

number of fatalities also dropped from 2016 to 2017, yet the trend line predicts a slight 

increase in fatalities for 2019. The annual fatalities rates and the five year averages 

mimic the same patterns seen in the numbers of fatalities, but the computed trend line 

shows a slight reduction in the 2019 target value as compared to the 2017 value. A 

2019 target fatality rate of 0.879 fatalities per HMVMT as computed by the trend line 

is recommended as this target is reasonable and consistent with recent performance, 

and confirms the NHDOT's goal to reduce fatal crashes. 

Serious Injury Rate 3.207 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 62

The number and rate of serious injuries dropped by 17 and 18 percent in 2017, 

respectively. The resulting trend analysis computed 2019 targets representing 4.1% 

and 4.6% annual reductions, respectively, from the 2017 five year averages. The 

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

period (prior to 2017). Sustaining this dramatic improvement in performance is 

difficult to justify absent any major identifiable contributing factors. A 2019 target 

serious injury rate of 3.207 fatalities per HMVMT is recommended as it would be a 

more achievable goal consistent with the observed safety performance in recent years. 

This target represents an annual reduction in the five year average of 3.9%. The 

serious injury rate target has been computed by assuming the crash performance in 

2017 is repeated in 2018 and 2019. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 53.4 

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

Simple trend analysis predicts a rising value (poorer performance) of 56.7 nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries. Although similar poor performance has been 

experienced in the past (as recently as 2015) the result contradicts ambitions of 

achieving performance improvements and creates a politically challenging message. A 

2019 target of 53.4 fatalities and serious injuries (i.e., maintaining the 2017 five-year 

average) is recommended for the following reasons. First, adopting a rising target as 

computed by the trend line would be contrary to the purpose of the HSIP and the 

NHDOT's ambitions of achieving performance improvements. Second, the 

recommended target appears to be a realistic and achievable goal as it is consistent 

with recent years’ safety performance. 

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. 

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

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

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

(NHOHS), a representative MPO, and the FHWA NH Division was held in March 2018 to review and confirm 

the target-setting process to be undertaken. Using data provided by the NH Department of Safety (NHDOS) 

and Division of Motor Vehicles, the NHDOT compiled the data, computed draft targets, modified the targets as 

appropriate, and composed narratives to document and defend the selected targets. These draft targets were 

reviewed with the NHDOT HSIP Committee and the NHOHS, as well as NHDOT and NHDOS leadership for 

concurrence. The accepted targets for the three common safety performance measures (number of fatalities, 

rate of fatalities, number of serious injuries) were published by the NHOHS in their annual Highway Safety 

Plan.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 62

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 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 20 21 22 33 23 23 20

Pedestrian Fatalities

Number of Older Driver and 51 60 65 57 72 80 80

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

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

Reliable 2017 serious injury data is not yet available. Due to the recent NH Department of Safety's migration 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 62

from their former crash records database (known as CRMS) to a new MMUCC-compliant system (known as 

VISION), reliable serious injury data is not available for querying. To avoid skewing serious injury trends with 

unreliable 2017 data, the 2016 value of 80 SI crashes has been used as an estimate for 2017.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 62

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.

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

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

level evaluations.

NHDOT's HSIP program is data driven using crash data to select candidate locations for improvement and 

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

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

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

safety with the proposed improvements.

NHDOT's HSIP program also includes systemic projects. These projects improve safety statewide and include 

several types of projects including the following: construction of median barriers on divided highways, 

installation of horizontal curve warning signs to comply with MUTCD, installation of retroreflective backplates 

on traffic signals, installation of centerline and edge line rumble strips and stripes, and replacement of deficient 

guardrail and its terminal units to meet current safety standards.

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

all proven safety countermeasures, but this has not been corroborated with system-wide data analysis.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

HSIP Obligations 

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

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

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

program has delivered worthwhile projects. The NHDOT also continues to deliver systemic projects with a 

recent emphasis on installing rumble strips, improving deficient guardrail elements, installing MUTCD-
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 62

compliant curve signs, and enhancing signalized intersections with retroreflective backplates. A planned 

initiative will continue system signal improvements by implementing flashing yellow arrows. Both the flashing 

yellow arrows and retroreflective backplates initiatives are planned to be expanded to municipal roadways as 

well.

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Intersections 20 101 0.15 0.74

Pedestrians 12 35 0.09 0.26

Bicyclists 2 6 0.01 0.04

Older Drivers 18 17 0.13 0.12

Motorcyclists 15 85 0.11 0.62

Data 102 374 0.75 2.73
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 62

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

Reliable 2017 serious injury data is not yet available. Due to the recent NH Department of Safety's migration 

from their former crash records database (known as CRMS) to a new MMUCC-compliant system (known as 

VISION), geolocated serious injury data is not available for querying. Due to this data deficiency, the NHDOT is 

not able to provide 2017 counts for fatal crashes related to lane departure, road departure, or work zones, or 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Data

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 62

serious injuries related to lane departure or work zones.

The NHDOT is confident that this data will be available for the FY2018 reporting period, at which time any 

missing or unreliable 2017 data will be verified and updated where necessary.

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 62

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Pittsfield 24842 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify 

left-turn lane offset

Whitefield P2953 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway - other 29.00 13.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 36.00 16.00 1.48

Statewide 15358 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 4.00 4.00

Derry 13249 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

62.00 114.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 35.00 74.00 154.00 0.78

New London 

14451A

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

23.00 56.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 2.00 33.00 58.00 19.05

Boscawen 

13957A

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 0.32

Holderness 15309 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

7.00 1.00 8.00 3.61

Pittsfield 15622 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

13.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 20.00 3.00 1.65

Brentwood 15619 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

9.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 4.00 25.00 16.00 36.86

Greenland 15618 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane26.00 20.00 1.00 7.00 11.00 33.00 32.00 3.02

Boscawen 15621 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

14.00 16.00 6.00 1.00 20.00 17.00 0.55

HampsteadAtkinson 15663Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane15.00 11.00 1.00 3.00 8.00 19.00 19.00 6.78

Lyme 15695 Rural Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.39

Effingham 16041 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection signing - add 

enhanced regulatory sign 

(double-up and/or 

oversize)

6.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 11.00 1.00 532.64
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 62

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Epping 15693 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Through lanes - add 

additional through lane

56.00 49.00 1.00 1.00 18.00 9.00 75.00 59.00 1.16

Keene 20812 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

12.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 14.00 4.00 0.93

Swanzey 15697A Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

9.00 3.00 9.00 4.00 18.00 7.00 375.83

Barrington 16201 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane12.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 19.00 6.00 0.90

Barnstead 16200 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

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

Candia 16413 Rural Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

re-assign existing lane use

3.00 12.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 15.00 5.9

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

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

No
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.)

ROADWAY SEGMENT

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

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) 2 2

Access Control (22) 100 100

Page 57 of 62

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/19/2017 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2021 

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

 2021 

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

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

One/Two Way 

(91)

Operations 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)

INTERSECTION

100 100 100 100 100 100

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

2 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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Page 58 of 62
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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=incapacitating=serious injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual suspected serious injury Yes It is estimated that Vision, the new 

electronic software, will have incorporated 

all towns/larger CRMS crash report by April 

2019, which is the only way to be 

completely statewide MMUCC compatible. 

Yes The Department of Safety put together a 

data dictionary over a decade ago, but it 

will need to be updated with the current 

CRMS form.

Yes

Crash Database suspected serious injury No N/A No N/A No

Page 59 of 62

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

Interchange Type (182) 2 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):

94.56 94.56 87.50 87.50 82.18 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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

Function Class 1 through 7. Work has begun on all but intersection / junction traffic control.

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

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

be collected on roads with function class 1 through 7. Work has begun to collect data for all but the intersection / junction traffic control FDE; these three FDEs are expected to be completed within four to six years.

The collection and management of the MIRE FDEs occurs within the NHDOT's Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance - GIS Section and is stored in the roadway data inventory. We use an ArcGIS environment along with an 

Oracle database. This data is also shared on 'NH GRANIT', which is NH's statewide GIS clearinghouse. Most elements are collected and updated on an annual basis by staff in the Planning and Community Assistance Bureau. Existing 

collection methodologies include collection by visiting sites and entering data into a laptop, or using aerial imagery and other forms of imagery to locate elements. Nightly scripts are run to aggregate the data. We will be looking at more 

modern methods such as data collection with tablets and mobile devices, via Lidar and with other emerging technologies.

All data collection and entry is currently done by NHDOT staff. The Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance assigns two staff at 100% of their time and two at 50% of their time, and Bureau of Traffic assigns two temporary staff 

(summer interns) at 100% of their time. NHDOT will continue to maintain the MIRE data and fund the collection of the data leveraging existing GIS tools within our current operating budgets.

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. 
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 62

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 Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating No Data dictionary needs to be updated as it is No It is estimated that Vision, the new No

10 years old. electronic software, will have incorporated 

all towns/larger CRMS crash report by April 

2019, which is the only way to be 

completely statewide MMUCC compatible. 

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.

New Hampshire Traffic Records Strategic Plan Federal Fiscal Year 2018

July 1, 2017 Page 70

6.2 Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Compliance

New Hampshire’s crash repository is currently designed according to MMUCC v3 guidelines.

New Hampshire is striving to achieve adoption of the definition for “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” from the MMUCC 4th edition by April 15, 2019. These plans include the following:

• Collecting and accurately aggregating MMUCC v4 attribute “Suspected Serious Injury (A)”

• The State’s crash database, data dictionary, and crash report user manual employ the verbatim terminology and definitions for this attribute from the MMUCC v4 standard.

• The State’s crash form employs the verbatim MMUCC v4 “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” attributes

• Ensure the seven serious injury types covered by the attribute are not included in the other attributes listed in the State’s injury status data elements.

The NH Department of Safety (NHDOS) has introduced and begun use of a new crash database, known as VISION, to replace the former system known as the Crash Records Management System. VISION appears to be capable of 

receiving MMUCC IV compliant reports; however, the current reporting form in use by the majority of municipal law enforcement agencies does not provide all the fields necessary for full MMUCC compliance. NHDOS continues to work to 

expand the use of fully compliant electronic crash reporting throughout the state.

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

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2018 

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

An HSIP program assessment is planned to be conducted in 2018.
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 61 of 62

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 62 of 62

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

fatality rate). 

(e.g. annual 

Emphasis area means a highway safety 

collaborative process. 

priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

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 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

a 

Systematic refers to an approach

system.

where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

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.