New Hampshire

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: NH
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 4

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 18

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 18

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 21

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 26

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 26

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 41

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................43

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 44

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 48

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 53

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 60

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 66
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

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. This includes 

both infrastructure-related projects and non-infrastructure projects, 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 or behavioral 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 s SHSP ensures that this 

approach is maintained. NH annually tracks and reports performance measures including the number of 

fatalities and severe injury rates per vehicle mile traveled. 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 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 to reduce 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 MaineDOT and VTrans have 

formed a tri-state collaborative partnership with NHDOT to more effectively reach the collective 

regional goal. NHDOT has also incorporated the reduction of Fatalities into their 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 determining safety problem identification and countermeasures analyzes. NH has been 

moving forward with implementation of Highway Safety Manual (HSM).
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Map 21 continues 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 States'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 outcomes of the Traffic Records Assessment was that performance 

measures for data quality are needed, including measures of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 

uniformity, integration and accessibility in order to guide improvements to the data and data systems.

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

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

9 critical emphasis areas (CEA) to be addressed by safety safety stake holders in NH, listed below. In 

2014, the Education and Public Outreach committee was created and makes the tenth (10th) emphasis 

area. The committee has been meeting since July 2014 and has developed documentation that states 

the challenge, primary focus and goals for this emphasis area.

 *Adolescent Drivers

 *Comprehensive Safety Data Improvement

*Crash Locations

*Distracted Driving

*Impaired Driving

*Motorcycle and Vulnerable Roadway Users

*Older Drivers

*Speeding

*Vehicle Occupant Protection

*Education and Public Outreach

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

should be considered in selection and development of HSIP projects, however the intent of the HSIP 

is primarily target engineering-related countermeasure improvements. The crash types of special 

interest have been identifies in the crash locations CEA. The next major update to the SHSP is 

underway and should be completed by the end of this year, 2016. 
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

With respect to eligibility for funding, 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, and 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 stand-alone 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 2014 crash data in order to align numbers with the report that the 

Office of Highway Safety submits to NHTSA. The Office of Highway Safety targets are as follows:

Reduce the number of fatalities on NH Roadways due to vehicle crashes by 5% 

from 111 to 105 by December 31, 2017.

Reduce the number of Fatalities per 100 million VMT by 2% from 0.86 to 0.84 by 

Dec 31, 2017.

Reduce the number of serious traffic injuries on NH Roadways due to vehicle 

crashes by 14 percent from 497 (2011-2015 average) to 427 by Dec. 31, 2017.

 The definition of serious injury still needs to defined in NH and agreed of how to repeat this annual 

number. There are discrepancies between agencies when calculating this number. Over the next year, 

this number needs to be rectified. Currently, the Office of Highway Safety shows this number as 497 and 

NHDOT shows this number in the tri-state report as 616.

Note: the fatality target reduction number will be very hard to meet this year as the fatality number on 

August 1, 2016 is at 76 and last year on this date it was 53.
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

with the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

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

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

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

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

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

improve volume data on all public roads.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Other-Regional Planning Commission staff

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

area, local experience/insight on crashes, etc. 

The HSIP committee consists of Assistant Director Project Development, Design, Traffic, 

Maintenance, Bike Pedestrian coordinator and Planning personnel from the NHDOT, RPCs, 

MPOs and FHWA . Committee meetings are held monthly to review project selection and 

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

incorporate the HSIP process in their Transportation Improvement Plan development. 

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

Locations Critical Emphasis Area in the SHSP, which addresses engineering and infrastructure-related 

improvements. Projects are identified that target these types of crashes using the methods listed 

below. The three approaches will identify sites for Traditional, Systemic, and Road Safety Audit 

projects that have potential for safety improvements. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other-Regional Planning Commission Staff
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

the last reporting period.

Other-HSIP crash data reporting aligns with Highway Safety Agency crash data reporting. Both using 

2013 crash data for the report.

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

would like to elaborate.

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

eliminated specific HRRR funding and created a special rule for High Risk Rural Roads. MAP-21 

also revised the definition of what is considered a “High Risk” Rural Road. The new definition is 

“any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road with 

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

Highway Safety Plan”.

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

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

incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for roadways of the same functional classifications 

or roadway; or b) that will likely have increases in traffic volumes that are estimated to create an crash 

rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional 

classifications of roadway. Though there is no longer a specific pot of money for an HRRR 

program, NHDOT chooses to continue to fund improvements on these roadways through the 

HSIP program. These type of projects replace the curve warnings and we currently by the end 

of 2016 will have all of the state roads curve wanting signs up to date except for District 1.

The Highway Safety Improvement program committee meets monthly to discuss projects 

funded by the program. They review projects currently in design, discuss projects currently in 

construction and review the programmatic project list that is funded by the Highway Safety 

improvement program. New Hampshire Road safety audit program has a deadline of December 

first and requires the location of have a crash history of serious injuries or fatals. Some of the 

other projects that in the program include intersection improvements, guardrail terminal 

improvements, rumble strips, and acess management.
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety Crash Data Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash Left Turn Crash

Segments

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Run Off the Road

Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

No

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

no medians on local roads

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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).
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-EPDO

Traffic

Volume

Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

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

EPDO

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Other-Run Off the Road

Traffic

Volume

Other-site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal crashes only

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

Yes

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

No

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

EPDO

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-need requirement MIRE and HSM

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Traffic

Volume

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Other-Run Off the Road Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Other-RSA request from local agencies

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 100

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Other-Run off the Road

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 100

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Other-RSA local agency

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal crashes only

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Right Angle Crash
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Other-RSA request by local 

agency 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Other-RSA rquested by local 

agency

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

Yes

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Other-Run off the Road

Traffic

Volume

Median width

Other-Site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

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

50%

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

improvements?

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Other-intersections

Other-F--terminal Replacements

Other-Other Median Barriers

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

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

last reporting period.

Road Safety audits

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

would like to elaborate. 
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

The Road Safety Audit program changed its application criteria and when the applications can be 

accepted. The application deadline is submitted every December 1st. The Road safety audit criteria 

includes:

* at least one crash resulting in a fatal or serious injury in the past 10 years

* no project completed in the last 5 years addressing safety concerns

* no previous studies indicating desired countermeasures that are too expensive

* completed application forms with signatures, location description, description of the safety 

concerns and traffic volumes

* selecting sites that are crash data driven

Once the applications are received the applications are reviewed for completeness, safety issues and 

crash data. The information about each location is entered into a spreadsheet and is ranked for the 

highest safety improvement to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on NH Roadways.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $8,999,994.00 95 % $9,362,489.03 95 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

HRRR Special Rule $467,005.59 5 % $467,005.59 5 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

2 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

2 %

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

2 %

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

2 %

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 

period?

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

State and Local Funds $0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Totals $9,466,999.59 100% $9,829,494.62 100%
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

If Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advises again in the future like recently done in the past 

year, that the funding levels for the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will likely limit money for 

transportation disbursements to states, then this will impact the program. The impact to The State of 

New Hampshire and the Transportation Improvement program will result in general uncertainty and will 

have a significant impact to funding the State Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Due to limited 

State Highway Trust Fund revenues, the State of New Hampshire uses Turnpike Toll Credits to meet the 

match of the federal program. As a result, there are limited State dollars to support the federal program 

and as a consequence, the STIP becomes dependent on the availability of federal funds. Any loss of 

federal funds could very well lead to suspension of work and delay of future State and local 

transportation projects.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) signed in December 2015 provides funding 

for the Highway Safety Improvement program. The FAST Act continues the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on 

all public roads, including non-state-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a 

data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on 

performance.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

The Road Safety audit ranking spreadsheet provides a data driven analysis of the requested locations. 

The locations with crash data, traffic volumes and speed limits are ranked against each other. The 

spreadsheet shows locations with higher points are better applications/locations for safety 

improvements.
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Outp

ut 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AA

DT

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

ExeterHampton 

#28535

Roadside Barrier - other

Miles

467500 467500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Swanzey 

#15697

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

Miles

49500 49500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Lancaste

r #16208

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

Miles

1159293

.41

1159293

.41

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Manches

ter 

#27412

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment Miles

5729.32 5729.32 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #28135

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity Miles

467005.

59

467005.

59

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Rocheste Intersection geometry 58541.1 58541.1 HSIP Rural 40 State Intersecti Crash 
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

r #27873 Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

Miles (Sectio

n 148)

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Highway 

Agency

ons Locations

Statewid

e #28655

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

Miles

1102677

.95

1102677

.95

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Seabroo

k #16444

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

Miles

1025264

.54

1025264

.54

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #28513

Roadway Rumble strips -

center Miles

450670 450670 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Meredit

h #16470

Interchange design 

Installation of new lane 

on ramp

Miles

1061044

.6

1061044

.6

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Keene 

#26765

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

traffic signal to 

roundabout

Miles

1545732

.65

1545732

.65

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Belmont 

#16203

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

Miles

538735.

45

538735.

45

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

District 

Three 

#24863

Roadside Barrier - cable

Miles

269500 269500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Brooklin

e #40092

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add left- Miles

353440.

12

353440.

12

HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Principal 

45 State 

Highway 

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

turn lane n 148) Arterial -

Other

Agency

Henniker 

#28735

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

re-assign existing lane 

use

Miles

30000 30000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Concord 

#24921

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

Miles

5500 5500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Barnstea

d 

#14121E

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

159500 159500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Pelham 

#29338

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

Miles

27500 27500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Ossipee 

#29315

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

existing right-turn lane

Miles

44000 44000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

locations

Farmingt

on 

#16212

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn laneMiles

132000 132000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #40604

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

Miles

168300 168300 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Concord Intersection geometry 4750.2 4750.2 HSIP Rural 35 City of Lane Crash 
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

#28053 Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn laneMiles (Sectio

n 148)

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Departur

e

locations

Statewid

e #40922

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add backplates 

with retroreflective 

borders

Miles

27500 27500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Tilton 

#29358

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

Miles

44000 44000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Derry 

#24861

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

Miles

66000 66000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #40802

Roadside Barrier - cable

Miles

77000 77000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Swanzey 

#40485

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

Miles

27500 880000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #40014

Miscellaneous 93500 93500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Comprehen

sive Safety 

Data 

Improveme

nts

Statewid

e #40921

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

27500 55000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Crash 

Locations
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Other

Statewid

e #40914

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and bicyclists

27500 38500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #40864

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

55000 55000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #40913

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

82500 82500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Comprehen

sive Safety 

Data 

Improveme

nts

Statewid

e #26484

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

42694.1 42694.1 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Education

al efforts

Educatio

n and 

Outreac

h

All of the 

Emphasis 

areas

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #40862

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

23100 23100 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Educatio

n and 

Outreac

h

All of the 

Emphasis 

areas

Crash 

Locations

Statewid

e #26524

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

110000 110000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Education

al efforts

Educatio

n and 

Outreac

h

All of the 

Emphasis 

areas

Comprehen

sive Safety 

Data 

Improveme

nts
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 126.4 119 114.8 114.2 111.2

Number of serious injuries 626.6 597.2 585.2 560.2 550

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.96 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.86

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 4.74 4.55 4.51 4.32 4.24

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

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

Year - 2014

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

5.85 15.24 0.56 1.47

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

18.73 34.63 1.85 3.41

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

7.02 38.79 0.65 3.58

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

11.71 36.02 1.18 3.63

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

7.02 29.09 1.45 6

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

7.02 59.97 1.97 16.69

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

8.19 34.63 0.42 1.78

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3.51 20.78 0.27 1.62
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

10.53 60.96 0.81 4.67

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

8.19 70.65 0.49 4.22

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

8.19 47.1 0.94 5.41

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

11.71 78.97 1.32 8.9
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 73.78 322.41 0.75 3.27

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 24.04 134.2 2.91 16.23

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 11.91 87.26 0.97 7.14

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0.47

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 1.25 0.24

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0.21 0.24
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

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

The new Hands Free Electronic Device law was effective July 1, 2015 and the first time in numerous 

years Distraction was not in the top 5 causes of deaths on NH roadways according to the Data analyst at 

the Department of Safety. The fatality and serious injury numbers are trending downward but there are 

behavioral issues that are reoccurring year to year. Some of those issues include not wearing seat belts, 

speeding, impaired driving, failure to yield or centerline encroachment and medical issues. To impact 

those behavioral issues State and local agencies will need to work together collaboratively to find 

solutions and education methods. NH Driving Toward Zero program, though not funded under the new 

FAST ACT, should continue to be a way to bring those agencies together to collectively influence the 

fatalities and serious injuries.

NHDOT is working on improvements to automate some of the locating features in GIS. Thru the Traffic 

Records grants State Police is also working to have all of the police reports be submitted electronically. 

This will improve the crash data quality and availability once the entire state is electronic.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.11

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.28 0.32 0.34 0.28 0.34

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.39 0.43 0.45 0.44 0.45

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

divide total older driver injuries by the older driver population data as shown on your website. 

VMT rate for K = K/HMVMT for 2012 where k=23,HMVMT=128.61 

VMT rate for K =0.17 
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

For the special rule VMT rate for K=K/# of people 65 yrs or older for 2012, where k=22, # people =194 

Special rule for K = 23/194=0.11 

For special rule of injuries for A=A/# people 65 or older for 2012, where A=65, # people= 194

Special rule for A=65/194=0.33 

calculated rate for 2012= (.4+.38+.39+.43+.44)/5= 0.09

calculated rate for 2014 =(.39+.43+.44+.44+.45)/5=0.09

2014 cal rate is not high so special rule does not apply
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

Benefit/cost

If 'benefit/cost', indicate the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program benefit/cost ratio.

1

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

NH is investigating "Y-intersections" around the state. NH is identifying these locations and will look for 

a way to prioritize which intersection would benefit the most and design safety improvements for those 

locations.
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure Run-off-road 55.8 227.2 0.43 1.75

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 55.8 227.2 0.43 1.75

Intersections Intersections 14.8 146.8 0.11 1.13

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 10.8 39.8 0.08 0.31

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 1 10.4 0.01 0.08

Older Drivers All 24 61 0.19 0.47

Motorcyclists All 20.2 112.4 0.16 0.87

Work Zones All 3.8 15.8 0.03 0.12

Data All 111.2 550 0.86 4.24
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Groups of similar project types
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barrier Run-off-road 13.4 48.8 0.1 0.38

Roadway Departure All 55.8 227.2 0.43 1.75

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

All 111.2 550 0.86 4.24

Local Safety All 31.6 221.6 0.24 1.71

Horizontal Curve Run-off-road 48.4 187.4 0.37 1.44

Right Angle Crash Angle 14.8 146.8 0.11 1.13

Crash Data All 111.2 550 0.86 4.24

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

All 111.2 550 0.86 4.24

Left Turn Crash Left-turn 14.8 146.8 0.11 1.13

Segments All 98.2 420 0.76 3.24

Intersection Intersections 14.8 146.8 0.11 1.13
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Systemic Treatments
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-intersections Nonintersection14.8 146.8 0.11 1.13

Other-Other Median Barriers Run-off-road 13.4 48.8 0.1 0.38

Rumble Strips All 55.8 227.2 0.43 1.75

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Angle 14.8 146.8 0.11 1.13

local safety All 31.6 221.6 0.24 1.71

Upgrade Guard Rails Run-off-road 55.8 227.2 0.43 1.75

Install/Improve Signing Run-off-road 48.4 187.4 0.37 1.44

Other-F--terminal Replacements Run-off-road 55.8 227.2 0.43 1.75

Install/Improve Pavement Marking 

and/or Delineation

Night-time 55.8 227.2 0.43 1.75
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

The systemic approach to safety involves improvements to roadways that are widely implemented 

based on high-risk roadway features correlated with particular severe crash types. This method is very 

different from the traditional approach used in network screening in that locations receiving 

improvements are not necessarily required to have a demonstrated crash history. Systemic 

improvements serve as a strong complement to improvements identified through network screening, 

together treating the most hazardous sites and reducing the risk of severe crashes across the entire 

network. 

Systemic countermeasure programs have also been shown to be more effective at reducing the overall 

number of crashes in the state than spot improvements, meaning that successful management of these 

programs will be essential in reaching State performance targets for reduction of fatalities and severe 

injuries. Whereas spot improvement projects only influence the safety at a single site or small area, 

systemic countermeasures are installed in entire towns, districts, or statewide with the potential to treat 

a large number of safety concerns and change driver behaviors. This is typically accomplished by 

implementing a large number of low-cost countermeasures that generally have a proportionally large 

safety benefit. Thus, it is the intent of the NH HSIP to use systemic countermeasure treatments as a 

significant means to improve highway safety in the State. 

The systemic approach is iterative, flexible, and applicable to a variety of systems, locations, and crash 

types. Similar to the network screening approach, systemic planning involves problem identification, 

countermeasure selection, and project prioritization. The first step in the systemic process is to analyze 

system-wide crash and roadway data to target crash types (e.g., lane departure) and associated roadway 

risk factors (e.g., curves or roadside hazards) that make a significant contribution to the number of fatal 

and severe injury crashes in the State. Sites with these risk factors are identified and prioritized by 

potential for future severe crashes based on AADT, crash predictions for that roadway type, roadway 

characteristics, etc. Appropriate low-cost countermeasures (e.g., rumble strips) are then proposed to 

effectively address the specific crash types on roads with the identified risk factors. Finally, the chosen 

countermeasures are installed systemically at the selected sites. 

NH is starting to move towards more systemic projects and countermeasures.
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functiona

l Class

Improvemen

t Category

Improvement Type BefFata

l

BefSeriou

s Injury

Bef-All 

Injurie

s

BefPD

O

BefTota

l

AftFata

l

AftSeriou

s Injury

Aft-All 

Injurie

s

AftPD

O

AftTota

l

Evaluatio

n Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

Whitefield Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

3 3 2 4 6 -0.21

Whitefield Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Roadway - other 1 1 0.01
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Derry Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacemen

t

10 23 33 2 13 15 0.78

New 

London

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

1 2 6 17 26 3 3 6 19.05

Boscawen Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

2 4 2 8 1 1 0.32

Holderness Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

4 4 3.61
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Epsom Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - add 

basic advance warning

1 10 11 3 3 81.72

Pittsfield Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacemen

t

8 14 22 2 1 3 1.65

Brentwood Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacemen

t

1 2 12 11 26 4 5 9 36.86

Brentwood Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane2 4 6 4 7 11 -3.52
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Greenland Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane5 24 29 1 7 8 16 -7.02

Boscawen Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

18 18 2 8 10 -0.55

Hampstead

-Atkinson

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane4 10 14 1 3 4 -0.16

Lyme Rural 

Minor 

Collector

Speed 

management

Traffic calming feature 1 2 3 1.39
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Effingham Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - add 

enhanced advance warning 

(double-up and/or oversize)

3 2 4 9 532.64

Epping Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

auxiliary through lane

1 25 47 73 1 13 14 1.16
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location 

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data 

are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated 

February 13, 2013. 

Performance measure means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor 

changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives.

Programmed funds mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into 

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety 

data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system.

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.