Page 1 of 50

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 50

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................24

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................24

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................26

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................30

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................30

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................38

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................39

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................39

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................40

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................44

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................46

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................49

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................50
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 50

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. 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.”
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 50

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. 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 to that end Maine DOT and VTrans have 

formed a tristate collaborative partnership with NHDOT to more effectively reach the collective regional goal. 

NHDOT has also incorporated the reduction of fatalities into our Balanced Scorecard, representing one of the 

twelve Strategic Objectives of the NHDOT. 

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 recent 

migration from the former Crash 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. 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 50

Ten critical emphasis areas: 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 intent of the HSIP is to 

target engineering improvements to infrastructure. Crash types of special interest have been identified in the 

crash locations CEA. The NH SHSP is now in its third edition and will be updated in 2021. 

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

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

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

that projects with the greatest safety return will be the top priority. 

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

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

Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source funds as the broader project, rather than with HSIP 

funds, when that safety feature is included in the broader project. 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.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 50

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

and includes representatives from the NHDOT Bureaus of Highway Design, Traffic, Highway Maintenance, 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 class 8, 9, and 19), and therefore the volumes are estimated based 

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

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

The State is working to improve volume data on the roads for which it is currently lacking. In addition, the State 

has involved municipal partners in two Every Day Counts 5 initiatives that will proceed in fiscal year 2020. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 

 Districts/Regions 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

 Maintenance 

 Operations 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 50

 Planning 

 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 noninfrastructure projects. The NHDOT continues to work 

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

NHTSA or other public or private sources. 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 Bicycle Safety 

 Horizontal Curve 

 HRRR
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 50

 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?

 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. 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 50

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 

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
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 50

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 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

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 50

 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

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
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 50

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

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 50

 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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic  Functional classification
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 50

 Other-Run Off the Road  Volume

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? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Fatal crashes only
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 50

 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 

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume  Other-site subtype
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 50

 Other-Run Off the Road

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 50

 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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 50

 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? 

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 50

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
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 50

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
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 50

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? 

 40

 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 portion of HSIP funds spent on systemic or systematic improvements varies. FY 2019 funding of systemic 

/ systematic improvements was approximately 40%. It is anticipated that this percentage will increase over time 

as our program approach trends toward a higher proportion of systemic improvements with a focus on rumble 

strips, durable pavement markings, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings, and other worthwhile improvements. 

NHDOT is working with FHWA NH on a data-driven process to optimize the portion of our program directed 

toward systemic and systematic improvements. 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis 

 Engineering Study 

 Road Safety Assessment 

 SHSP/Local road safety plan 

 Stakeholder input 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 50

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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 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.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 50

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) $7,289,251 $8,016,988 109.98%

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))

$957,888 $1,506,207 157.24%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $8,247,139 $9,523,195 115.47%

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? 

$201,500

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

$201,500
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 50

Funding for non-infrastructure initiatives is limited to the execution of our annual road safety audit program. 

Funding apportionment is not fixed, but is adjusted according to need.

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

NHDOT historically has not transferred funds into or out of HSIP.

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

the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

expanded safety program.

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 

Highway Safety Manual guidance provides a data driven process for selecting and evaluating 

countermeasures.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 50

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

LancasterShelburne 

41204

Roadside Barrier- metal 4.7 Miles $51070 $51070 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Statewide 40803 Roadside Barrier- metal 3.4 Miles $47401 $47401 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Rochester 

41849

Roadway Roadway -

restripe to revise 

separation 

between 

opposing lanes 

and/or shoulder 

widths 

0.5 Miles $109337 $109337 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,245 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit 

applicant

Crash 

locations

Two-way left 

turn lane

Derry 24861 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $244286 $244286 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,740 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

control

ColebrookDixville 41783Roadside Barrier- metal 2.2 Miles $9158 $9158 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Fitzwilliam 

16211

Speed 

management

Traffic calming 

feature

0.4 Miles $22000 $22000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,211 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Crash 

locations

Traffic 

calming

Statewide 41604 Roadside Barrier- metal 3.1 Miles $280059 $280059 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Statewide 28139 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

720 Curves $742212 $742212 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Curve 

warning 

signs

Statewide 41269 Roadside Barrier- metal 2.0 Miles $1109311 $1109311 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Statewide 28134 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

1420 Curves $1168034 $1168034 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

curve 

warning 

signs

Ossipee 29315 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $3034577 $3034577 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,244 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Reducing 

intersection 

crashes
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 50

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 42424 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

14 Intersections $667480 $667480 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reducing 

intersection 

crashes

Tilton 29358 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

flashers - add 

overhead 

(continuous)

1 Intersections $63195 $63195 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,270 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Improve 

driver 

awareness of 

intersections

Swanzey 40485 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1422527 $1422527 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,069 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Reducing 

intersection 

crashes

Claremont 

25621

Access 

management

Change in 

access - close or 

restrict existing 

access

2 Access 

points

$407000 $407000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 20,543 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Reducing 

intersection 

crashes

Farmington 

16212

Roadway Roadway - 

restripe to revise 

separation 

between 

opposing lanes 

and/or shoulder 

widths 

0.9 Miles $9582 $9582 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 16,928 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Lane 

Departure

Reducing 

intersection / 

driveway 

crashes

NorthumberlandStratford 41898Roadside Barrier- metal 1.6 Miles $16500 $16500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Statewide 41909 Roadside Barrier- metal 2.3 Miles $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Statewide 41899 Roadside Barrier- metal 1.8 Miles $71500 $71500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

PelhamChesterfield 

29338

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

flashers - add 

"when flashing" 

warning signmounted

2 Intersections $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Crash 

locations

Reducing 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 41897 Roadside Barrier- metal 2.3 Miles $88000 $88000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

RochesterFarmington 

42243

Roadway Roadway - 

restripe to revise 

separation 

between 

opposing lanes 

.6 Miles $66000 $66000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 16,928 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Crash 

locations

Reduce 

intersection / 

driveway 

crashes
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 50

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

and/or shoulder 

widths 

Lyme-OrfordPiermontHaverhill 41913

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Miles $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

NewportCroydonGrantham 41914

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Miles $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

guardrail

Chester 41848 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 9,078 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road safety 

audit

Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Durham 42523 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,305 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Conway 42522 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,676 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 40841 Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

1 Modification 

of design 

guidelines

$55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reducing 

lane 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 40921 Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $16500 $16500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Shared 

strategy: 

promote road 

safety audit 

program

Statewide 41418 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

flashers - add 

stop signmounted

3 Intersections $11000 $11000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Reducing 

intersection 

crashes

Statewide 42241 Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

3 Locations $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Shared 

strategy: 

promote road 

safety audit 

program

Manchester 

42445

Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,302 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Shared 

strategy: 

promote road 

safety audit 

program

Farmington 

42569

Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

2 Intersections $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 12,208 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Shared 

strategy: 

promote road 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 50

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

safety audit 

program

Barrington 

42570

Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther17,095 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Shared 

strategy: 

promote road 

safety audit 

program

Rochester 

42571

Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

1 Intersections $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,144 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Shared 

strategy: 

promote road 

safety audit 

program

Bow 42724 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 Interchanges $6600 $6600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate23,533 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Crash 

locations

Focus 

strategy: 

improve 

driver 

awareness of 

intersections
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 50

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 90 108 135 95 114 136 102 147 101

Serious Injuries 462 623 489 451 459 477 410 451 485

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.708 0.838 1.046 0.732 0.871 1.009 0.746 1.067 0.729

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.632 4.832 3.790 3.477 3.505 3.540 2.997 3.275 3.501

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

9 9 17 16 13 21 14 12 9

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

43 50 40 37 53 42 40 27 28
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 50

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2015

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

5.71 13.77 0.55 1.33

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 50

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 Local Road or 

Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street

other
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 50

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

other 0.35 2.36 0 0.02

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:120.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 50

The 2019 five-year average is 120.0 fatalities. Fatalities in the last decade have shown wide variation over a 

one to two-year cycle, with the number of 2019 fatalities being among the lowest values for the decade. The 

five year average of the number of fatalities also increased from 2018 to 2019, but with the five-year average 

trend line mostly attenuating the large annual variation. The rising trend computed by the data is not 

acceptable as a target for the NHDOT as it would be contrary to the core objective of the state’s Driving 

Toward Zero initiative, thus a level trend has been selected as the target. A 2021 target of 120.0 fatalities (i.e., 

maintaining the 2019 five-year average) has been adopted.The randomness in the annual performance 

prevents strict adherence to the SHSP goal of a 50% reduction in fatalities by 2030 in the setting of annual 

targets. Rather, this target has been set based on data of the actual performance. However, NHDOT's 

fundamental effort through the SHSP is to reduce fatalities on NH roadways, and the NHDOT will continue to 

identify and pursue infrastructure improvements consistent with the relevant SHSP critical emphasis areas to 

reduce fatalities.

Number of Serious Injuries:456.4

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

The computed 2021 target represents a 4.3% annual reduction from the 2019 five-year average. The 

computed target is substantially lower than any historical values within the analysis period, as the trend line is 

still strongly influenced by the peak in serious injuries in 2021. A 2021 target of 456.4 serious injuries is hereby 

adopted as it would be a more achievable goal consistent with the observed safety performance in recent 

years, yet would still represent nearly the best serious injury performance in the last decade.The randomness 

in the annual performance prevents strict adherence to the SHSP goal of a 50% reduction in fatalities by 2030 

in the setting of annual targets. Rather, this target has been set based on data of the actual performance. 

However, NHDOT's fundamental effort through the SHSP is to reduce serious injuries on NH roadways, and 

the NHDOT will continue to identify and pursue infrastructure improvements consistent with the relevant SHSP 

critical emphasis areas to reduce serious injuries.

Fatality Rate:0.884

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

The 2019 five-year average fatality rate is 0.884 per HMVMT. Fatalities in the last decade have shown wide 

variation over a one to two-year cycle, with the 2019 fatality rate being among the lowest recorded values for 

the decade. The annual fatalities rates and the five-year averages exhibit similar patterns seen in the numbers 

of fatalities, with proportionally large annual variations. The computed trend line predicts a slowly rising trend to 

2021. This rising trend computed by the data is not acceptable to the NHDOT as a target as it would be 

contrary to the core objective of the state’s Driving Toward Zero initiative. A 2021 target fatality rate of 0.884 

fatalities per HMVMT (i.e., maintaining the 2019 five-year average) is hereby adopted.The randomness in the 

annual performance prevents strict adherence to the SHSP goal of a 50% reduction in fatalities by 2030 in the 

setting of annual targets. Rather, this target has been set based on data of the actual performance. However, 

NHDOT's fundamental effort through the SHSP is to reduce fatalities on NH roadways, and the NHDOT will 

continue to identify and pursue infrastructure improvements consistent with the relevant SHSP critical 

emphasis areas to reduce fatalities.

Serious Injury Rate:3.353

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

The predicted 2021 target computed from trend analysis represents a 5.9% annual reduction from the 2019 

five-year average. The computed target is substantially lower than any historical values within the analysis 

period (with the exception of 2017) and would not be sustainable target. A 2021 target serious injury rate of 

3.353 fatalities per HMVMT is adopted as it would present a more achievable goal while still representing 

better performance than has been observed in the decade.The randomness in the annual performance 

prevents strict adherence to the SHSP goal of a 50% reduction in fatalities by 2030 in the setting of annual 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 50

targets. Rather, this target has been set based on data of the actual performance. However, NHDOT's 

fundamental effort through the SHSP is to reduce serious injuries on NH roadways, and the NHDOT will 

continue to identify and pursue infrastructure improvements consistent with the relevant SHSP critical 

emphasis areas to reduce serious injuries.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:45.9

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

Trend analysis predicts a strongly declining trend and a 2021 target value of 45.9 non-motorized fatalities and 

serious injuries. This target value of 45.9 is hereby adopted as it would be consistent with the performance 

trend since 2015 and would represent a realistic performance level consistent with the desired trend.The 

randomness in the annual performance prevents strict adherence to the SHSP goal of a 50% reduction in 

fatalities by 2030 in the setting of annual targets. As a result, this target has been set based on data of the 

actual performance; however, the strong downward trend in the actual performance is favorable and is in line 

with SHSP goals, NHDOT will continue to identify and pursue infrastructure improvements consistent with the 

SHSP critical emphasis area for vulnerable users.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

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

(NHOHS), a representative MPO, and the FHWA NH Division was held in April 2019 to review and confirm the 

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

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

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

defend the selected targets. These draft targets were reviewed with the NHDOT HSIP Committee and the 

NHOHS, as well as NHDOT and NHDOS leadership for concurrence. The accepted targets for the three 

common safety performance measures (number of fatalities, rate of fatalities, number of serious injuries) were 

published by the NHOHS in their annual Highway Safety Plan.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 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 116.4 120.0

Number of Serious Injuries 433.2 456.4

Fatality Rate 0.879 0.884

Serious Injury Rate 3.207 3.364

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

53.4 51.8

Annual fatal crash performance over the last decade has exhibited wide relative variation on a one or two-year 

cycle, with no clear causative factors, either favorable or unfavorable, having been identified by the NHDOT or 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 50

the NH Office of Highway Safety. The most common contributing factors in NH's fatalities are behavioral 

including impairment, speeding, and distraction or inattention, combined with a relatively low usage rate of 

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

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 behavioral risk factors. In 

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

improvements, as recommended by the Every Day Counts 5FORRRwD (Focus on Reducing Rural Roadway 

Departures) 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.

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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

22 33 23 23 20 30 25

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

65 57 72 80 80 67 67
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 50

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 systemic 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, and replacement of deficient guardrail and terminal units to meet current safety standards. A 

future initiative will install durable wet-reflective markings on interstates and freeways. 

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 

At the start of FY 2018 the NHDOT Bureau of Highway Design expanded its Safety Section, which historically 

been comprised of one or two individuals, to five individuals to provide a more robust level of program support. 

The NHDOT aims to continue to expand our road safety audit (RSA) program by encouraging communities, via 

the regional planning commissions (RPC) and municipal planning organizations (MPO), 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 
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 50

signalized intersections with retroreflective backplates. 

A planned initiative will continue system signal improvements by installing 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. 

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period.

In response to frequent noise complaints related to 'standard' rumble strips, but in recognition of the proven 

safety value of rumble strips, NHDOT has updated our guidelines to incorporate 'sinusoidal' rumble strips in 

our standard practice. Using guidance from other State DOTs, the NHDOT was able to select a 'sinusoidal' 

design that provides the safety benefit proven to reduce lane departure crashes 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 2019

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)

Lane Departure 36.4 149 0.25 1.15

Roadway Departure 39.4 203.8 0.3 1.53

Intersections 19.8 106.6 0.15 0.81

Pedestrians 10.2 34.6 0.08 0.26

Bicyclists 1 7.2 0.01 0.05

Older Drivers 22.8 52.8 0.17 0.4

Motorcyclists 19.4 89.2 0.15 0.68

Work Zones 2 7.2 0.01 0.06

Data 108.8 497 0.82 3.75
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 50

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

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 50

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.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 50

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)

Barnstead 

16200 (2013)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

14.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 18.00 4.00

Barrington 

16201 (2013)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

10.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 13.00 9.00

Candia 16413 

(2013)

Rural Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - reassign existing 

lane use

4.00 18.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 8.00 22.00

Pittsfield 

24842 (2014)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

5.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 9.00

Loudon 24941 

(2015)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add right-turn 

lane

8.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 15.00 17.00

Swanzey 

15697A 

(2015)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

7.00 5.00 8.00 15.00 5.00

Barrington 

16178 (2015)

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

9.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 11.00 4.00

Lee 15692 

(2015)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

108.00 225.00 1.00 3.00 22.00 32.00 131.00 260.00

Lebanon 

29362 (2016)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00

Rochester 

27873 (2016)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Noninfrastructure 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 3.00

Swanzey 

15697 (2016)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

13.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 6.00

Keene 26765 

(2016)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

7.00 15.00 6.00 1.00 13.00 16.00
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 50

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)

Derry 15690 

(2016)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

6.00 8.00 1.00 9.00 3.00 16.00 11.00
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 50

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/19/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2021

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

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 50

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

80 2

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]

5

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 50

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

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]

5

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): 98.89 94.56 88.13 88.13 82.73 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

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

Data collection on median type has been paused, and other incomplete MIRE elements have not yet progressed, due to limited resources and other priorities. Data collection on median type is anticipated to resume soon. 

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, 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 assigns one staff person at approximately 50% of their time plus a supervisor. NHDOT will continue to maintain the MIRE data and fund the 

collection of the data leveraging existing GIS tools and within the limitations of our resources.
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 50

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

New Hampshire HSIP Guidance2013.doc

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

2021 Safety Target Summary draft 15jun20.pdf

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 50

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.