Page 1 of 49

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

Disclaimer: This report is the property of the State Department of Transportation (State DOT). The State DOT 

completes the report by entering applicable information into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) online reporting tool. Once the State DOT completes the report pertaining to its 

State, it coordinates with its respective FHWA Division Office to ensure the report meets all legislative and regulatory 

requirements. FHWA’s Headquarters Office of Safety then downloads the State’s finalized report and posts it to the 

website (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/reporting) as required by law (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)(A)). 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence .............................................................3

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology .......................................................................................................................6

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................23

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................23

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................25

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................27

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................27

Safety Performance Targets ............................................................................................................33

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................35

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................36

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................36

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................37

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................41

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................45

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................48

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................49
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 49

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. 407 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.” 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary

The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads 

through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. Infrastructure improvement projects are 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and driver behaviors. In 2006, FHWA established a new approach to advancing safety by focusing on 

performance. In order to effectively meet performance targets, States must apply limited resources to the areas 

that are most likely to achieve results. The requirement to develop and regularly update a Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) ensures that this approach is maintained. NH annually tracks and reports performance 

measures including the numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries. Several other performance 

measures of specific interest to the State are listed in the NH SHSP. New Hampshire has embraced the goals 

and vision of the national Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. The State named its SHSP New Hampshire 

Driving Toward Zero in recognition of the national plan, and created a public outreach program with the same 

name to promote change in New Hampshire's safety culture (see nhdtz.com). The initiative recognizes that 

even one traffic death is unacceptable and sets the aggressive goal of reducing all deaths on the nation's 

highways, a goal virtually achieved in the aviation industry in the past several decades. Dozens of public and 

private stakeholders from across the State have come together in a collaborative effort to update and 

implement the strategies in the SHSP. The vision of Driving Toward Zero is embodied in NH's goal of reducing 

the number of fatalities and serious injuries by 50% by 2030, equaling an annual reduction of 3.4%. Maine and 

Vermont share this target, and toward that goal Maine DOT and VTrans have formed a tristate collaborative 

partnership with NHDOT to more effectively reach the collective regional goal. The concept of a focused 

approach has been further reinforced with requirements for data-driven decision making and resource 

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

Highway Safety Problems and Opportunities, delineates specific requirements for identifying safety problems 

and evaluating countermeasures. NHDOT has implemented the guidelines of the Highway Safety Manual 

(HSM), part D, in the selection and evaluation of safety improvements, wherever applicable. MAP21 and the 

subsequent FAST ACT have continued building on the concept of a safety data system that has the capability 

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

based goals to maximize safety. Recent improvements to the NH data system include the migration from the 

former Crash Records Management System (CRMS) to the current crash and citation database known by the 

moniker VISION, the compilation of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data 

elements (FDE), and the completion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Traffic 

Records Assessment. One of the key findings of the Traffic Records Assessment was that performance 

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

integration and accessibility in order to guide improvements to the data and data systems. The States are 

required to define a clear linkage between the behavioral NHTSA-funded Highway Safety Program and 

the FHWA-funded HSIP via the State's SHSP. The 2012 version (2nd edition) of the NH SHSP identified nine 

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

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

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

ten critical emphasis areas include Distracted Driving, Impaired Driving, Speeding, Vehicle Occupant 

Protection, Teen Traffic Safety, Older Drivers, Vulnerable Roadway Users, Comprehensive Safety Data 

Improvement, Crash Locations, and Education and Public Outreach. The 4 E's of safety (education, 

enforcement, engineering, and emergency medical services) should be considered in the selection and 

development of HSIP projects, however the primary focus of the HSIP is to enhance highway safety via 

infrastructure improvements. Crash types of special interest have been identified in the crash locations CEA. 

The NH SHSP is now in its third edition and the production of the next edition began in 2021.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 49

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 administered centrally and 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, 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 principle of data driven project 

selection in their Transportation Improvement Plan development. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Design

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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

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

or rural and urban local roads (functional classes 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 seeking to acquire or develop volume data on the roads for which it is currently lacking as required 

for MIRE. 

The NHDOT has begun learning about local road safety plans through the technical assistance of FHWA with 

the objective of piloting this initiative in the near future. 

There are no tribal roads in New Hampshire. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 49

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Administration

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The State’s HSIP is centrally administered. The NHDOT selects candidates for improvement using historical 

network screening results which are then corroborated with recent crash data. While this project identification 

and selection method is more 'naive' and less rigorous than desired, it is nevertheless data-driven. The 

candidate locations are then disseminated to the NHDOT's safety partners via the HSIP Committee for review 

and comment. For all the candidate locations, the Committee will consider the scope and cost of the 

anticipated improvements in relation to the overall program funding constraints, and the improvement's 

expected benefit/cost ratio. Candidates not selected into the HSIP may be recommended for consideration via 

other funding programs. 

The NHDOT Safety Section continues to work with the assistance of the FHWA NH Division to regain and 

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

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

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

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

elaborate. 

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

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

NHTSA or other public or private sources. NHDOT has also leveraged FHWA Technology Deployment Funds 

to create and air safety-related public service announcements on statewide radio stations.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 49

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Right Angle Crash

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Shoulder Improvement

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-EPDO

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 49

• 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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 49

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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).
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 49

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

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
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 49

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 49

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-RSA local agency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 49

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-RSA request from local agencies

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 49

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

no medians on local roads

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 49

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal crashes only

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 49

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-EPDO

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-Site Subtype
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 49

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

EPDO

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume

• Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 49

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Run off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume

• Median width

• Other-Site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 49

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume • Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 49

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Run Off the Road

• Traffic

• Volume • Other-site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-Run off the Road
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 49

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSIP Committee evaluation 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

The majority of systemic improvements involve treatments to address roadway departure crashes.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 49

NHDOT has been following technological developments cooperatively with regional DOTs, but has not begun 

to implement specific infrastructure improvements to support connected vehicles and emerging ITS 

technologies.

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

projects to ensure that as the projects' scopes and costs evolve through the project development process, a 

favorable b-c ratio (greater than 1.0) can be sustained.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 49

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $7,731,232 $7,995,814 103.42%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$2,036,540 $522,500 25.66%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $9,767,772 $8,518,314 87.21%

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and operated) or tribal 

safety projects? 

$0

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects? 

$0

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

been established. Local projects are commonly identified via road safety audits. There are no tribal roads in 

NH.

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

$572,000

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

$553,478

Non-infrastructure investments included road safety audits and a participation in the periodic acquisition of 

statewide orthoimagery. 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 49

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?

$4,792,769

Historically, NHDOT has neither transferred funds into or out of the HSIP. However, in FY 2021 NHDOT 

transferred accrued unexpended obligational authority 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 via the use 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 prevents the State of New Hampshire from being able to 

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

safety program.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

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

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

the Highway Safety Manual and the companion Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse provides a data 

driven process for selecting and evaluating countermeasures.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 49

General Listing of Projects 

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Statewide 

28134

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

5723 Locations $38500 $38500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Curve 

warning signs

ColebrookDixville 41783Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

43 Locations $8928 $8928 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Modernize 

guardrail 

systems

LymeHaverhill 

41913

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

95 Locations $6600 $6600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Modernize 

guardrail 

systems

NewportGrantham 

41914

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

70 Locations $1252438 $1252438 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Modernize 

guardrail 

systems

Portsmouth 

42350

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $1216444 $1351604 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

4,600 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Traffic signals

Conway 

42522

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersections $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther13,000 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Roundabout

Durham 

42523

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersections $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,600 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Roundabout

Statewide 

42953

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

120 Miles $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Curve 

warning signs

TSMO 42996 Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Locations $766700 $766700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Collect and 

disseminate 

safety data

Brookline 

43083

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Intersections $44000 $44000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,500 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Road safety 

audit

Claremont 

43084

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

0.5 Miles $44000 $44000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Road safety 

audit

Meredith 

43085

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

5 Intersections $40250 $40250 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

4,300 30 Town or 

Township 

Road safety 

audit

Pedestrians Road safety 

audit
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 49

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Highway 

Agency

District 1 E 

Guardrail 

43130

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

50 Locations $1446974 $1446974 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Modernize 

guardrail 

systems

Statewide W 

Guardrail 

43131

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

88 Locations $85800 $85800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Modernize 

guardrail 

systems

District 2 

Guardrail 

43132

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

30 Locations $104500 $104500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Modernize 

guardrail 

systems

Statewide 

43246

Miscellaneous SHSP 

Development

1 SHSP $165000 $165000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 All public 

roads

N/A SHSP SHSP

StrathamGreenland 

43272

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

2.1 Miles $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,300 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Two-way left 

turn lane

PeterboroughChesterfield 

43333

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

System (ICWS)

3 Intersections $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections ICWS 

monitoring

Statewide 

43368

Miscellaneous Data collection 1 Statewide $440000 $440000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 Statewide N/A Data Orthoimagery

Statewide 

43404

Miscellaneous Data analysis 1 Statewide $82500 $82500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 All public 

roads

N/A Data Collect and 

disseminate 

safety data

Chichester 

43406

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Intersections $44000 $44000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Road safety 

audit

Jaffrey 43407 Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Intersections $44000 $44000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Road safety 

audit

Milton 43408 Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Intersections $44000 $44000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Road safety 

audit

Bow-Concord 

43340

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

31.3 Miles $1715530 $1715530 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

pavement 

markings
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 49

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 135 95 114 136 102 147 100 104 118

Serious Injuries 489 451 459 477 410 451 485 504 482

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.046 0.732 0.871 1.009 0.746 1.067 0.723 0.869 0.898

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.790 3.477 3.505 3.540 2.997 3.275 3.501 4.211 3.670

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

17 16 13 21 14 12 9 17 10

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

40 37 53 42 40 27 28 13 29
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 49

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2021

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 Private 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 49

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)

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

5.8 0.53

Rural Minor Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street

12.2 1.24

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or 

Street

Rural Major Collector 8.8 1.05

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

6.8 0.34

Urban Minor Arterial 9.2 0.57

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Major Collector 4.6 0.55

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

12 0.77

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 49

Year 2021

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

73.8 260.4 0.78 2.7

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

State Toll Authority

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

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Highway 

Agency
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 49

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:111.6

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

Fatalities in the last decade have shown wide variation over a one to two-year cycle, with the number of 2019 

and 2020 fatalities being among the lowest values for the decade, but with the annual number of fatalities 

having climbed in 2021 despite the substantially reduced traffic volumes. The slightly declining trend computed 

by the data is not indicative of anticipated performance. Specifically, the very poor performance seen in 2018 

continues to heavily influence the computed trend line. The actual performance that will ultimately be reported 

for 2023 will no longer include this data point; therefore, the 2023 target has been computed presuming that 

the 2021 annual performance (i.e., countering the rising trend since 2019) will be repeated. The target supports 

SHSP goals by reflecting the increasing reliance on the implementation of proven systematic roadway 

departure countermeasures to address this critical emphasis area, and the improved safety performance that 

will result.

Number of Serious Injuries:466.4

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

The number of serious injuries had been increasing since 2017 but declined in 2021. Also worth noting is that 

despite the substantial reduction in vehicle miles traveled in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number 

of serious injuries was the highest since 2012, resulting in a spike in the serious injury rate.

The rising trend computed by the data is not acceptable to determine a target as it would be contrary to the 

core objective of the state's Driving Toward Zero initiative. Therefore, it is recommended that the computed 

value for 2021 performance, 466.4 serious injuries, be maintained and adopted as the 2023 target. The target 

supports SHSP goals by reflecting the increasing reliance on the implementation of proven systematic roadway 

departure countermeasures to address this critical emphasis area, and the improved safety performance that 

will result.

Fatality Rate:0.857

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

Similar to the number of fatalities, the slightly declining trend computed by the data is not indicative of 

anticipated performance. Specifically, the very poor performance seen in 2018 continues to heavily influence 

the computed trend line. The actual performance that will ultimately be reported for 2023 will no longer include 

this data point; therefore, the 2023 target has been computed presuming that the 2021 annual performance 

(i.e., countering the rising trend since 2019) will be repeated. The target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the 

increasing reliance on the implementation of proven systematic roadway departure countermeasures to 

address this critical emphasis area, and the improved safety performance that will result.

Serious Injury Rate:3.532

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 49

The rate of serious injuries had been increasing since 2017 but declined in 2021. Also worth noting is that 

despite the substantial reduction in vehicle miles traveled in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number 

of serious injuries was the highest since 2012, resulting in a spike in the serious injury rate.

The rising trend computed by the data is not acceptable to determine a target as it would be contrary to the 

core objective of the state's Driving Toward Zero initiative. Therefore, it is recommended that the computed 

value for 2021 performance, 3.532 fatalities per 100 MVMT, be maintained and adopted as the 2023 target. 

This target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the increasing reliance on the implementation of proven 

systematic roadway departure countermeasures to address this critical emphasis area, and the improved 

safety performance that will result.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:37.0

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

Trend analysis indicates a declining trend and a 2023 target value of 33.2 non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries. Because achieving this target would require safety performance significantly better than all prior years, 

a more modest target of 37.0 is recommended. This more achievable target has been computed by assuming 

the current annual performance of 39 fatalities and serious injuries would be maintained.

The target supports SHSP goals by reflecting the planned expanded use of systematic pedestrian crossing 

improvements to address this critical emphasis area, and the improved safety performance that will result. In 

addition, the new focus on and HSIP allocation for non-motorized safety will renew and sustain consistent 

improvement in this measure.

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, NHTSA, and the FHWA NH Division was held 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 trend lines and draft targets, modified the 

targets as appropriate to consider the influence of external factors, and composed narratives to document and 

explain the selected targets. These draft targets were reviewed with the NHDOT HSIP Committee, the 

NHOHS, the FHWA NH Division, and the NH metropolitan planning organizations, and approved by the 

NHDOT commissioner. The adopted 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

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2022 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 120.0 114.2
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 49

Number of Serious Injuries 456.4 466.4

Fatality Rate 0.884 0.861

Serious Injury Rate 3.353 3.531

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

45.9 39.8

Annual crash performance over the last decade has exhibited wide relative variation, with no clear causative 

factors, either favorable or unfavorable, having been identified by the NHDOT or the NH Office of Highway 

Safety. The most common contributing factors in NH's most severe crashes are behavioral including 

impairment, speeding, and distraction or inattention, compounded by a relatively low usage rate of passenger 

restraints. Because rural roadway departure (RwD) crashes are over-represented in NH's fatal and serious 

injury crashes, and to counter these common contributing behavioral factors, NHDOT coordinates closely with 

the NH Office of Highway Safety as they apply NHTSA funds toward addressing these risk factors. In addition, 

NHDOT's HSIP has been trending toward a greater emphasis on systemic and systematic improvements, as 

advocated by the FORRRwD initiative, including guardrail modernization and curve warning sign 

improvements, and soon to include a renewed deployment of rumble strips and the installation of durable and 

wet-reflective pavement markings. All of these are proven countermeasures for reducing RwD crashes.

With regard to serious injury crashes, the 2020 peak experienced in NH and elsewhere, despite the 

substantially reduced traffic volumes, caused a significant spike in the serious injury rate and elevated the fiveyear averages for both the number and rate of serious injuries.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

23 23 20 30 25 24 23

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

72 80 80 67 67 72 51
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 49

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

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

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

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

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

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

improvements. NHDOT's HSIP program also includes and focuses heavily on systematic projects. These 

projects improve safety statewide and have included several types of projects including the following: 

construction of median barriers on divided highways, installation of horizontal curve warning signs to reduce 

roadway departure crashes on curves (and to comply with MUTCD), installation of retroreflective backplates on 

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

terminal units to meet current safety standards, and installation of durable pavement markings on divided 

highways. 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 program or system-wide 

data analysis. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed 

• HSIP Obligations 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• Increased focus on local road safety 

• More systemic programs 

• Organizational change 

• Policy change 

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

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

delivered worthwhile projects. The NHDOT also continues to deliver systemic projects with a recent emphasis 

on installing rumble strips, improving deficient guardrail elements, installing MUTCD-compliant curve warning 

signs, and enhancing signalized intersections with retroreflective backplates. A recent project implemented 

flashing yellow arrows to control permissive left turns currently operating under a green ball signal indication. 

Both the flashing yellow arrows and retroreflective backplates initiatives are planned to be expanded to 

municipal roadways as well to improve our inclusion of local roads in our HSIP. The NHDOT is also gathering 

information, with the technical assistance of FHWA, on local road safety plans with the intent of piloting this 

tool in the near future. 
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 49

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period.

In response to common noise complaints related to rumble strips, but in recognition of their proven safety 

value, NHDOT has updated our guidelines to incorporate 'sinusoidal' rumble strips in our standard practice. 

Using guidance from other State DOTs, the NHDOT selected a 'sinusoidal' design that retains the rumble 

strip's safety benefit while reducing their undesirable exterior noise. 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2021

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)

Roadway Departure 78.2 173 0.57 1.26

Intersections 25.6 69 0.19 0.5

Pedestrians 10.4 21.4 0.08 0.16

Bicyclists 1.2 4.8 0.01 0.03

Older Drivers 21.2 47 0.16 0.34

Motorcyclists 25.2 63.6 0.18 0.46

Work Zones 0 0.4 0 0
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 49

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 49

The NHDOT does not presently have the resources to conduct rigorous evaluations of countermeasure 

effectiveness; however, the NHDOT is an active participant in the project advisory committee of the FHWA 

pooled fund study for the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements, which provides valuable data 

regarding the effectiveness of proven safety countermeasures to support program decisions.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 49

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, NH 28 

& NH107, 

Upgrades to 

existing signal 

system

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

6.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 10.00 7.00

Gilford - 

16207, NH 

11A/Belknap 

Mountain 

Rd/School 

House Hill Rd, 

Modify vertical 

alignment

Urban Major 

Collector

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or 

elevation 

change

10.00 8.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 19.00 11.00

Rindge - 

16210, US 202 

& Forristall Rd, 

Construct 

offset right turn 

lane

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 3.00

Loudon - 

24941, NH 

106/Staniels 

Rd/Josiah 

Bartlett Rd, 

Install traffic 

signal & turn 

lanes

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

9.00 19.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 17.00 20.00

Barrington - 

16178, US 202 

& NH 9, 

Convert 

existing Yintersection to 

a T 

configuration

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

realignment

12.00 4.00 3.00 15.00 4.00

Lee - 15692, 

US 4 & NH 

125, Replace 

existing traffic 

circle with 2 

lane 

roundabout

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

119.00 283.00 1.00 4.00 28.00 39.00 148.00 326.00
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 49

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)

Lebanon - 

29362, NH 

10/Oak Ridge 

Rd/Gould Rd, 

Install 

Pedestrian 

beacon

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00

Rochester - 

27873, US 202 

& Estes Rd, 

Building 

demolition for 

sightline 

improvement

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Removal of fixed 

objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 3.00

Swanzey - 

15697, NH 

12/Lake 

St/Swanzey 

Factory Rd, 

Install 

Roundabout

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

12.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 13.00 8.00

Keene - 

26765, NH 9 & 

Base Hill Rd, 

Install 

Roundabout

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

10.00 21.00 8.00 2.00 18.00 23.00

Derry - 15690, 

NH 28, Install 

Left Turn lane 

and traffic 

signals

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

6.00 10.00 1.00 12.00 5.00 19.00 15.00

Seabrook - 

16444, US 1, 

Widening to 

provide 

additional SB 

thru lane

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

20.00 51.00 7.00 7.00 27.00 58.00

Lancaster - 

16208, US 2 & 

US 3, Install 

Roundabout

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1.00 22.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 23.00

Milford - 

13692B, NH 

101, Install 

TWLTL

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

22.00 23.00 8.00 4.00 30.00 27.00
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 49

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)

Meredith - 

16470, NH 104 

& Meredith 

Center Rd, 

Construct 

offset right turn 

lane

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

6.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 8.00 5.00

Farmington - 

16212, NH 11, 

Install TWLTL

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

4.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 9.00

Belmont - 

16203, NH 106 

& Seavey Rd, 

Construct turn 

lanes

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Rochester - 

22712, 

Salmon Falls 

Rd, Modify 

Horizontal 

alignment of 2 

curves

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

6.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 6.00

Barnstead - 

14121E, NH 

28 / Peacham 

Rd safety 

improvements

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 8.00 4.00

Fitzwilliam 

16211 - NH 12 

/ NH 119 

safety 

improvements

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island – 

install on one or 

more 

approaches

3.00 16.00 4.00 1.00 7.00 17.00

Derry 24861 - 

NH 28 Bypass 

/ English 

Range Rd 

safety 

improvements

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

new traffic signal

4.00 11.00 6.00 10.00 10.00 21.00

Concord 

24921 - NH 

106 / NH 9 

signal 

improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing – 

left-turn phasing

10.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 17.00 1.00

Henniker 

28735 - 

Rural Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new 

crosswalk

7.00 3.00 7.00 3.00
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 49

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)

Western Ave 

ped/bike 

improvements

Brookline 

40092 - NH 13 

/ NH 130 

safety 

improvements

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 3.00

CanterburyNorthfield 

41057 - I93 NB 

exit 23 off 

ramp safety 

improvements

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

other

9.00 20.00 4.00 4.00 13.00 24.00
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 49

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? 

 2022

The 2022-2026 edition of the NH SHSP was completed and published on August 1, 2022 and approved by FHWA. 

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 49

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

87 58

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

5 5

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

10
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 49

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

10

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.28 97.67 88.13 88.13 83.64 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

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

be collected on roads with function class 1 through 7. Data collection is nearing completion for median types on State roads and consistent progress has been made on non-State roads, while the data collection is in its early stages for the 

remaining incomplete FDEs. Much of the data for the incomplete FDEs is available, but in formats incompatible with GIS. The collection and management of the MIRE FDEs occurs within the NHDOT's Bureau of Planning and Community 

Assistance - GIS Section and is stored in the roadway data inventory. We use an ArcGIS environment along with an Oracle database. This data is also shared on 'NH GRANIT', which is NH's statewide GIS clearinghouse. Most elements 

are collected and updated on an annual basis by staff in the Planning and Community Assistance Bureau. Existing collection methodologies include collection by visiting sites and entering data into a laptop, or using aerial imagery and 

other forms of imagery to locate elements. Nightly scripts are run to aggregate the data. We continue to investigate the use of more modern methods of data collection such as with tablets and mobile devices, via Lidar, and with other 

emerging technologies. All data collection and entry is currently done by NHDOT staff. The Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance will supervise temporary reassigned winter construction staff and/or summer interns to compete 

the FDE requirements. 

NHDOT will benefit from FHWA technical assistance in FY 2022 to enable the completion of the incomplete MIRE FDEs prior to the 2026 deadline.
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2022 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 49

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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