New Hampshire

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 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............................................................................................................. 35

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 35

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 39

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 42

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 42

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 56

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................59

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 60

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 65

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 70

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 79
2014 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 improvement, 

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 SHSP ensures that this approach is maintained. NH annually tracks and 

reports performance measures including the number of fatalities and severe injuries and 

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.

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

State named its SHSP New Hampshire Driving Toward Zero Deaths 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.
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

 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 section 

1401(a)(1) of SAFETEA-LU, Identification and Analysis of Highway Safety Problems and 

Opportunities, delineates specific requirements for determining safety problem identification 

and countermeasure analyses. The legislation also provides flexibility in the use of HSIP funds to 

address a State’s non-infrastructure safety issues. It is clear from legislation that safety funds 

are to be used on the most effective treatments and activities at the locations with the greatest 

needs, or potential thereof, and that the best available data is to be used to determine the 

proposed treatments. NH has been moving forward with implementation of the Highway 

Safety Manual (HSM) as a participant in the NCHRP 17-50 Lead State Initiative to facilitate this 

process and allow for more robust analysis of the roadway network. Use of Part A, Part B, and 

Part D of the HSM is growing, while implementation of Part C is in the beginning stages in NH.

MAP-21 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 a phased initiative to implement electronic crash reporting through the State’s Crash 

Report Management System (CRMS), the compilation of the Model Inventory of Roadway 

Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE), and the completion of the National 

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

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 stakeholders in 

NH, listed below.

• Adolescent Drivers

• Comprehensive Safety Data Improvement 

• Crash Locations

• Distracted Driving

• Impaired Driving

• Motorcycles and Vulnerable Roadway Users
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

• Older Drivers

• Speeding

• Vehicle Occupant Protection

The “4-E’s” of safety (education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency management 

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

intent of the HSIP is to primarily target engineering-related countermeasure improvements.

The crash types of special interest have been identified in the Crash Locations CEA. The next 

major update to the SHSP is scheduled for 2016, while more minor updates to the plan and 

strategies outlined in each section should be reviewed at least annually.

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 datadriven 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 per MAP-21, 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 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.
2014 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

District

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

improve volume data on all public roads.
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Regional Planning Commission staff

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

area, local experience/insight on crashes, etc. 

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

maintenance, Bike Pedestrain coordinator and planning personnel from the NHDOT, RPCs, 

MPOs and FHWA . Committee meetings are held quarterly, or as necessary, to review project 

selection and progress reports from project managers. Regional Planning Commissions are 

encouraged to incorporate the HSIP process in their Transportation Improvement Plan 

development. 

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

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

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

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

projects that have potential for safety improvements. 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Regional Planning Commission Staff

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate.

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

most recent years of data and then the HSE performs the Network Screening and produces the 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

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

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

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

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

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

eliminated specific HRRR funding and created a special rule for High Risk Rural Roads. 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 improvement on these roadways though the HSIP program. A statewide 

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

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

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

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Run Off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

no medians on local roads

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-EPDO Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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?
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Run Off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-need requirement MIRE and HSM

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Run Off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Other 

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-RSA request from local agencies

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Ranking based on B/C 100

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Run off the Road

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Other-RSA local agency

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-RSA request by local 

agency 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-RSA rquested by local 

agency

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Run off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Other 

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

50

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-intersections

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

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology 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 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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.

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

improvements. Since that time, the following additional systemic programs have been 

implemented: shoulder and centerline rumble strips and stripes, median barrier improvements, 

guardrail and end terminal improvements, rural curve signing and delineation, and an 

Intersection Safety Improvement Plan (ISIP). These programs are expected to continue in the 

next few years, with the ISIP growing in levels of effort as the phased implementation process 

begins.

Within the next year the State plans to develop a system that is capable of regularly 

evaluating the effectiveness of its implemented countermeasures. Evaluation of systemic 

projects should be considered when developing this data. This is vital in determining which 

programs should be allocated more or less funding, and whether the sites receiving treatments 

were correctly identified as those with potential to reduce fatal and severe crashes. A new 

feature for Safety Analyst is planned within the next couple of years with the capability to easily 

identify and evaluate systemic projects. Information showing the overall effectiveness of the 

current programs will also guide the Committee’s review of funding allocations for projects 

selected in each project identification method; e.g. if systemic countermeasure projects are 

more cost-effective than other types of HSIP projects then a greater amount of funding should 

be spent on them in the program.
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 20600000 98 % 17800000 94 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)

HRRR Special Rule 378400 2 % 1176357.99 6 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Totals 20978400 100% 18976357.99 100%

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

$350,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

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

$375,000.00

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

$375,000.00

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

period?

$0.00
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

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.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has advised that the funding levels for the Federal 

Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will likely run out of money for transportation disbursements to states by July 

or August 2014. FHWA may need to institute cash management measures which would involve delayed 

or partial reimbursements to the states. 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. As a result of the 

Congressional discussion on the HTF and MAP-21 reauthorization, the Department of Transportation has 

employed a moderate risk management strategy in utilizing federal funds with a strong commitment to 

funding current construction projects under contract. Revenue in the HTF is approximately 70 percent of 

federally reimbursable construction program outlays. Due to the uncertainty of federal funds in the HTF, 

the New Hampshire Department of Transportation sought the full authorization of federal funds for 

current year construction cash needs on existing multi-year construction projects to ensure funds are 

available to maintain the current federally funded construction program. As a result, the State’s remaining 

allocation of 2014 federal fiscal year funds is fully obligated and the remaining federally funded projects 

in the advertising schedule (about $25m) are being delayed to 2015 federal fiscal year. Taking proactive 

steps in anticipation of possible end of fiscal year redistribution of federal funds, the Department has 

maintained several projects in the September advertising schedule for any anticipated redistribution of 

federal funds. Typical redistribution to the State of NH has been in the amount of $5 to $8 million per 

year over the past years. The timing of advertising of these projects is subject to

availability of redistribution funding and will change if this funding is unavailable. Should a long term 

sustainable solution to the HTF issue not be reached by Congress in the coming months, project delays in 

Federal Fiscal Year 2015 are anticipated to be more substantial than those occurring in 2014. The NH 

DOT recognizes that every change in schedule regardless of project size can lead to considerable 

inconvenience for communities impacted and real economic consequences for our construction industry 

partners who plan on bidding on this work. We have worked diligently to avoid taking these steps that 

impact project schedules for as long as practical. We look forward to resolution of this issue through 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

authorization of a long-term surface transportation bill and through sustainable revenue sources to fund 

our critical transportation infrastructure projects.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Crash Data table formating is being improved by automating some of the DOT locating features.
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownersh

ip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Barrington 

project # 

16178

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control 

- two-way stop to allway stop

1 

Numbe

rs

56941

6

56941

6

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Major 

Collector

8700 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

High Risk 

Rural Road 

curve 

improveme

nt

Derry 

Project 

#15690

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

left-turn lane

11350

00

11350

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1250

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Improve 

access 

manageme

nt of 

intersection 

as well as 

adding left 

turn lanes

Lee 

Project 

#15692

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control 

- modifications to 

roundabout

27950

00

27950

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1517

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Improve 

traffic circle 

to 

roundabout

Pittsfield 

Project # 

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

31949

9

31949

9

HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Minor 

55 State 

Highway 

Intersectio

ns

Improve 

geometry 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

24842 left-turn lane n 148) Arterial Agency of 

intersection 

and 

improve 

signal 

equipment

EppingHampton 

project # 

26605

Roadside Barriermetal22410

00

22410

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2700

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

median 

barrier 

improveme

nts

Manchest

er 

project 

#20004

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

35000

0

35000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

40 City of 

Municipa

l Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

moderizatio

n of signals

Statewid

e project 

#28136

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Roadway 

signs (including post) -

new or updated

77000

0

77000

0

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Major 

Collector

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

signs along 

horizontal 

curves

WEDU 

Project 

#26484

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

25000

0

25000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

education

al effort

educatio

n effort

education

al effort

covers all 

emphasis 

areas

Teen 

Driver 

Project 

Non-infrastructure 

Outreach

10000

0

10000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

education

al 

outreach 

to high 

educatio

nal 

outreach 

to high 

education

al 

outreach 

to high 

educational 

outreach to 

high 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

#26524 schools schools schools schools

Rumble 

Strip 

Project 

#26842

Roadway Rumble strips 

- center

26170

0

26170

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduce run 

off the road 

crashes

AASHTO 

license 

software 

Project 

#27082

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

25000 25000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

software 

for crash 

data

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

software 

for crash 

data
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

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* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 134 126.4 119 114.8 114.2

Number of serious injuries 676 626.6 597.2 585.2 560.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.01 0.96 0.91 0.88 0.88

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.08 4.73 4.55 4.5 4.32

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

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

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

5.84 17.33 0.46 1.37

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

13.13 41.76 1.2 3.83

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

13.5 49.31 1.29 4.7

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

12.04 59.97 1.07 5.32

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

5.84 23.55 1.02 4.13

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

10.95 53.75 2.69 13.21

URBAN PRINCIPAL 8.39 37.76 0.52 2.34
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

4.38 18.21 0.45 1.85

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

12.04 59.53 0.97 4.8

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

9.49 103.51 0.56 6.08

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

8.39 38.65 1 4.83

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

9.49 52.87 1.34 7.49
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 87 362 0.86 3.57

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 21 127 1.35 8.23

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 12 108 0.8 7.5

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

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

Similar to infrastructure-related projects, non-infrastructure projects should be consistent 

with the NH SHSP and based on crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other datasupported means. HSIP funds should be used to implement proven, effective strategies in 

order to support the State’s safety performance targets. Strategies should either add to 

existing successful non-infrastructure programs (but not replace existing funding sources), or be 

used to implement new activities proven through research. In addition, the safety benefit and 

economic effectiveness of both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects should be 

considered during the Project Selection Process described later in this manual. Noninfrastructure projects must be approved by the NHDOT HSIP Committee in competition with 

all other projects. 

Examples of eligible non-infrastructure projects include behavioral countermeasures; 

safety culture programs; transportation safety planning; collection, analysis, and improvement 

of safety data; and road safety audits. The HSIP Committee has previously funded data 

improvements, road safety audits, and safety culture and public outreach efforts of the New 

Hampshire Driving Toward Zero (NHDTZ) program. HSIP contributes about $250,000 annually 

to NHDTZ, or about 3% of total HSIP funding. There are many opportunities to build on these 

efforts and to coordinate with other agencies in non-infrastructure programs.

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

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.194 0.168 0.16 0.156 0.118

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.44 0.4 0.402 0.394 0.328

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

0.634 0.566 0.56 0.55 0.444

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

just 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=22,HMVMT=128.61
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

VMT rate for K =0.17

For the special rule VMT rate for K=K/# of people 65 yrs or older for 2012, where k=22, # people =147

Special rule for K = 22/147=0.15

For special rule of injuries for A=A/# people 65 or older for 2012, where A=65, # people= 147

Special rule for A=65/147=0.44

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

No
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

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

We have developed a program that has projects projected for 3 years in the future and an additional 

waiting list. We also have calculated B/C ratios for almost all of the projects in the HSIP program.
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

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 Sideswipe 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0

Intersections Rear end 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 7.8 32 0.06 0.25 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 0.8 7 0.01 0.05 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 23 57.4 0.18 0.44 0 0 0

Motorcyclists All 16.8 102.4 0.13 0.79 0 0 0

Work Zones All 2.8 11.8 0.02 0.09 0 0 0

Data All 114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 0 0 0
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2013

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Intersection All 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 0 0 0

Local Safety All 31.8 198.4 1.55 9.68 0 0 0

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

All 114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 0 0 0

Crash Data All 114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 0 0 0

Segments All 89.8 391.2 0.7 3.03 0 0 0

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Run-offroad114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 0 0 0

Right Angle Crash Angle 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 0 0 0

Horizontal Curve All 43.2 168.2 0.33 1.3 0 0 0

Roadway Departure Run-offroad

47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0

Left Turn Crash Left-turn 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 0 0 0

Median Barrier Run-off- 11.4 42.8 0.09 0.33 0 0 0
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

road
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rumble Strips Run-off-road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0

local safety All 31.8 198.4 1.55 9.68 0 0 0

Other-intersections Nonintersection

13.4 136 0.1 1.05 0 0 0

Install/Improve Signing Night-time 43.2 168.2 0.33 1.3 0 0 0

Other-F--terminal Replacements Run-off-road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0

Cable Median Barriers Run-off-road 11.4 42.8 0.09 0.33 0 0 0

Install/Improve Pavement Marking 

and/or Delineation

Night-time 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Angle 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 0 0 0

Other-Other Median Barriers Run-off-road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0

Upgrade Guard Rails Run-off-road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 0 0 0
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

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.
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functiona

l Class

Improvemen

t Category

Improvemen

t Type

BefFata

l

BefSeriou

s 

Injury

BefOther 

Injur

y

BefPD

O

BefTota

l

AftFata

l

AftSeriou

s 

Injury

AftOther 

Injur

y

AftPD

O

AftTota

l

Evaluatio

n Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

Barrington US 

202/NH 9

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify skew 

angle

0 0 8 1 9 ? ? ? ? 0 6.23

Derry NH 28/ 

Kilrea Rd

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes 

- add left-turn 

lane

0 0 2 2 4 ? ? ? ? 0 1.14

Lee Us 4/NH 

125

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control 

- modifications 

to roundabout

0 0 3 17 20 ? ? ? ? 0 ?

Pittsfield NH 

28/NH 107

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes 

- add two-way 

left-turn lane

0 0 1 2 3 ? ? ? ? 0 1.96

EppingHampton NH 

101

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Roadside Barrier- metal 0 2 14 3 19 ? ? ? ? 0 4.8
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

77

Other

Manchester -

Hanover/Maple

, Maple/Spruce 

& Beech/Cilley

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control 

- two-way stop 

to all-way stop

0 0 5 0 5 ? ? ? ? 0 ?
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2014 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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