Maine

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: ME
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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

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

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

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 25

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 25

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 40

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................42

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 45

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 49

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 50

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 56

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 65
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

2. Executive Summary

Maine has a data driven approach for HSIP project selection, assessing various aspects of crash 

performance. Before and After crash results comparisons on safety projects have consistently 

shown performance improvement over the years. HSIP selection process is re-evaluated each 

year to see if there opportunities for enhancement and for improved alignment for the state's 

SHSP. 

Supplemental safety projects that are more systemic in nature, like centerline rumble strips and 

median cable barrier are also funded. Systemic approach was used in selecting centerline 

rumble strips during project years of 2016-2018. 2016 will be Maine's largest rumble strip 

installation year with about 175 miles going in. Maine is looking to expand it's systemic 

approach to further impact lane departure crash reduction - Maine leading crash concern. A 

more involved data analysis process is underway to develop a systemic approach to crashes on 

curves - a major segment of Maine's Went Off Road Crashes. Other broad strategies are 

underway for address speed management, pedestrian safety and interstate wrong way ramp 

entries.
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 MAP21 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

3. How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds administered in the State? 

Central

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

Local roads are included with the state-wide project candidates. Maine does capture crash and 

roadway data for Local roads and so is able to evaluate all locations within the state based on 

similar crash performance comparisons. Local requests are also receieved based on crash 

concerns and are reviewed as part of the candidate screening process.

MaineDOT's safety office will be presenting shortly on how to use High Crash Location data with 

regional planners. Maine will soon have an on-line crash data access system available to them 

to help with local analysis.

In terms of local road systemic improvements, MaineDOT's funding and approach are being 

evaluated for future funding periods.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-MPO/RPO; Bike/Pedestrian are being better integrated
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

6. Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Executive, Planning (including local roads and bike/ped), Traffic Engineering, Project 

Development, all play a part in safety planning. MaineDOT continues to enhance its Work Plan 

approach to integrate safety into the planning process, looking to get safety in the planning 

thought process early on to consider not just stand-alone safety needs, but also opportunities 

that would complement upcoming paving and construction projects. Safety Office is able to 

review corridor project candidates in advance to identify safety needs that might align with 

other work.

A Highway Safety Group has been established that includes a wide operational representation 

and FHWA presence to look at overall safety needs, funding philosophy and systemic 

opportunities. This group has embraced the systemic approach.

MaineDOT Regions have been very involved with Centerline Rumble Strip strategies, corridor 

reviews and project implementation.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

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

the last reporting period.

Other-Continuing adjustments to improve approach.

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

would like to elaborate.

Continue to seek to balance funding of spot improvements where crash history has been clearly a 

problem (this has often been concentrated on intersections) with systemic opprtunities related to Lane 

Departure mitigations and other core safety target areas.
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Program Methodology

10. Select the programs that are administered under HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways Skid Hazard

Crash Data Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement

Segments Other-Median Cable Barrier -

install completed in 2014

11. Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Median width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 1

11. Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

Roadside features

Other-MaineDOT's Highway 

Corridor Priority classifications

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost

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 1

Available funding 2

11. Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Other-Highway Corridor Priority Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Systemic approach being used to identify corridors of most exposure

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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 1

Available funding 2

11. Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Population

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

11. Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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 1

Available funding 2

11. Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic Horizontal curvature

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

11. Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

11. Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic Median width

Horizontal curvature

Lane miles Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Systemic for both Head On and Went Off Road (WOR). Curves will be focus for WOR

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

Yes

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

10

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

11. Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Cost Effectiveness 1

11. Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

11. Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

only

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-Usually work with MaineDOT's Local Roads unit

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

11. Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Population

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

13

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-These projects are normally coordinated through MaineDOT's Bike/Ped coordinator

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

11. Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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 1

Available funding 2

11. Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost prioritization

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 1

Available funding 2

11. Program: Shoulder Improvement
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Lane miles Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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 1

Available funding 2

11. Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit to Cost ranking

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 1

Available funding 2

11. Program: Other-Median Cable Barrier -install completed in 

2014

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

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 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 1

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

50%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Safety Edge

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Other-Wrong Way Driver interstate ramp improvements, rapid flashing 

beacons for ped crossings, 

Other-Went Off Road - curves

13. What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

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

the last reporting period.

Systemic Approach

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

you would like to elaborate. 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Systemic approach continues to broaden and has brought about coordination between MaineDOT 

safety and other MaineDOT operating units. The team looks to jointly define safety needs and issues, 

coordinate best mitigation techniques, and then integrate in Work Plan - coordinating with construction 

and paving projects when appropriate. 

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

16. Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

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

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

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

Amount Percentage Amount Percentage

HSIP (Section 148) $19,519,238.90 97 % $4,601,539.47 97 %

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

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$564,552.50 3 % $0.00 0 %

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

$0.00 0 % $137,161.00 3 %

Totals $20,083,791.40 100% $4,738,700.47 100%
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

0 %

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

0 %

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

reporting period?

0 %

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

period?

0 %

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

overcome this in the future.

No impediments seen. Safety Office continues to work with MaineDOT Exec., various 

MaineDOT operational areas and Regions to improve safety planning coordination/integration. 

Process continues to be enhanced over time. 

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Maine's leading crash exposure continues to be Lane Departure, experiencing 70% of statewide fatalities in this category. 

Head-on fatalities were up 50% in 2014 compared to recent prior years, but did come back 

down in 2015. Systemic opportunities are being evaluated to achieve a better funding mix that 

is reflective of SHSP priorities. In 2015 there was an increase in installations on centerline 

rumble strips - 90 miles planned then, compared to the 60 miles that existed on noninterstate road installations completed since 2006. In 2016, 175 more miles are planned, again 

more miles than the total prior miles already on the system. Additional opportunities are 

anticipated for future planning years, but won't be as high as current levels.

Although not necessarily directly translating to HSIP funding, but certainly contributing to safety 

planning, there is continued dialogue with MPO's/RPO's on local safety needs. 2015 saw a sharp 

increase both in motorcycle and pedestrian traffic fatalities. This has helped drive more intense 

dialogue both with the bike/ ped advocates and with United Bikers of Maine (the state's leading 

motorcycle advocacy group.
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

20
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improveme

nt 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

018522.

17

Pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists 

Miscellaneo

us 

pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists

0 157500 0 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

018814.

00

Roadside 

Barrier 

transitions

1 

Numbe

rs

2250 50000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

739 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Replace 

obsolete 

systems

018816.

00

Roadside 

Barriermetal

1 

Numbe

rs

220500 250000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

3415 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Install wbeam 

guardrail

018822.

00

Roadside 

Barriermetal

1 

Numbe

rs

346500 385000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Guardrail 

improvements

018837.

00

Noninfrastructu

re Training 

and 

workforce 

developme

nt

0 27000 30000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

statewide 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Outeach/educat

ion
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

018844.

00

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

1 

Numbe

rs

270000 300000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Replace 

obsolete 

systems

018857.

00

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

315900 403458.

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1535

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections Intersection 

improvements

018874.

00

Pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists 

Miscellaneo

us 

pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists

0 45000 50000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

481 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Bicyclists Construct 

High Visibility 

Bike Lane

018876.

00

Pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists 

Pedestrian 

beacons

1 

Numbe

rs

180000 195775 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Statewide 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians Rectangular 

Rapid Flashing 

Beacons

018877.

00

Noninfrastructu

re Training 

and 

workforce 

developme

nt

0 5400 6000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

NOC 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Outreach and 

education

Public Safety 

Outreach and 

Training

018893.

00

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

1 

Numbe

rs

37500 50000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Sign upgrades
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

018893.

17

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

1 

Numbe

rs

37500 50000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Sign upgrades

018897.

00

Roadway 

delineation 

Roadway 

delineation 

- other

1 

Numbe

rs

12000 15000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Large Animals Use reflective 

signs/delineat

ors

018898.

00

Roadway 

delineation 

Roadway 

delineation 

- other

1 

Numbe

rs

12000 15000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Large Animals Use reflective 

signs/delineat

ors

018899.

00

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

or other

1 

Numbe

rs

45000 64900.9 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Install 

centerline 

rumble strips

018900.

00

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

or other

1 

Numbe

rs

570076.

56

950241.

27

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Install 

centerline 

rumble strips

018901. Roadway 1 436500 574208. HSIP Rural 0 0 State Lane Departure Install 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

00 Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

or other

Numbe

rs

68 (Sectio

n 148)

Minor 

Arterial

Highway 

Agency

centerline 

rumble strips

018902.

00

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

or other

1 

Numbe

rs

90000 101447.

82

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Install 

centerline 

rumble strips

020205.

00

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

1485000 2525000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

4881 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections Intersection 

improvements

020207.

00

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

1213200 1911000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7571 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections Intersection 

improvements

020541.

17

Noninfrastructu

re 

Outreach

0 36000 40000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Outreach 

and 

education

0 0 Work Zones Public 

Education and 

Outreach

020581.

17

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

6142500 6825000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Statewide 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane Departure Head 

ON/Went Off 

Road
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

2015

(5-yr avg)

Number of fatalities 159 155 153 147.4 146.4

Number of serious injuries 852 852.8 851.2 867.8 864.4

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.09 1.07 1.06 1.02 1.01

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5.85 5.9 5.9 6.01 5.98

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

26
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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

Year - 2015

Function 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 - INTERSTATE

4.8 47.2 0.21 2.06

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

25.2 106.2 1.35 5.69

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

23.2 115.6 1.32 6.6

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

12.4 59.2 1.5 7.14

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

29.8 160.2 1.34 7.22

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

24.8 122.6 1.72 8.5

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

1.4 20 0.15 2.17

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0.2 7.6 0.12 4.66

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

5.6 55.8 0.81 8.09

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

6 80.4 0.62 8.37

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

5.4 56.4 0.57 5.99

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

3.2 29 0.74 6.74
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 80 496.8 0.94 5.84

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

28 151 1.53 8.26

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 1.2 19.6 0.09 1.46

STATE AID 33 193.8 1.18 6.95
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

elaborate.

Maine's fatality trends have been generally been positive, but 2015 showed an increase over 2014 

fatalities when Maine experienced the lowest fatality total in the past 70 years. The biggest swing in 

performance was for Motorcycles. In 2014, this population experienced a recent historical low of 10 

fatalities, and then in 2015, rose to 32. Maine's 5 year fatality average is now 146.4. During the years of 

2001-2004, the average was over 200. 

Maine continues to monitor crash report submission volumes with Police agencies, providing ALL 

agencies quarterly volume reports and following up with those that seem to be well outside the norm. 

Most corrections are caught now by the police agencies themselves, with less intervention needed by 

MSP & DOT. 

Incapacitating injuries are improving after hitting a recent high in 2012. 2015 incapacitating injuries are 

the second lowest in the last 13 years at 754. To put that in context, 2003 through 2006 had totals 

ranging from 1000 to over 1100.

Maine's lead crash concern continues to be lane departure. While overall numbers are trending down, 

Lane Departure still represents 70% of the state's fatalities. 

Application of Special Rules

27. Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians 65 

years of age and older.

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010

(5-yr avg)

2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.15 0.126 0.11 0.112 0.11

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.396 0.372 0.36 0.368 0.358

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.64 0.64 0.45 0.46 0.46

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

Queried in Maine's Crash Reporting database all crashes resulting in fatality or serious injury when 

fatality or injury occurred to Crash Report Person Type: Driver, Driver Owner or Pedestrian over 65 years 

old. (Older injuries only were counted)

All resulting crash fatalities/serious injuries by year were summarized. 
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Developed rates based on Section 148: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance; 

Attachment 2: Number of People 65 Years of Age and Older (Per 1,000 Total Population) for Maine.

For example:

1. 5 YR AVG data 'Fatality rate (per capita) for 2014.

FATAL RATE: 24.8 5yr avg fatals/226.6 5yr avg pop = .109

INCAPACITATING RATE: 81/226.5 = .357

2. 2014 single year data 'Fatality rate (per capita) for 2014

FATAL RATE: 24 fatals/243 population = .987

INCAPACITATING RATE: 74/243 = .304
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

28. Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Benefit/cost

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

See attached BEFORE and AFTER project table (provided with Q 36). 

Policy change

if 'policy change', list the policy changes made.

Highway Safety Group continues to take on systemic analysis to identify best opportunities for Head On 

and Went Off Road mitigation. Very good cooperative work done to accomplish current work plan's 

rumble strip installation contract with related policy/guideline updates

Other-Colloboration efforts continue, including networking every 2 months with other NE states.

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

Other-Increased application of systemic analysis

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

Maine has employed systemic (risk based selection) of safety improvements for some time. Basic risk 

criteria was established for installation of median cable barrier back when installed on limited access 

roads (primarily interstate) in 2010.

Rumble strip installations started as a reactive solution - if there was a high incidence of head on 

crashes, MaineDOT would put them in. This planning year we became very systemic - and chose 

corridors based on Highway Corridor Priority, Posted Speed Limit, and traffic volume as qualifying 

criteria. That screened criteria identified a disproportionate serious exposure on a limited number of 

miles of priority roadway.
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Went Off Road analysis is underway now, and represents our most complex systemic data drill down so 

far. We have identified that curves and night time are over-represented and will be determining other 

risk criteria to select corridors of most need.
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

SHSP Emphasis Areas

32. Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year - 2015

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

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)

Other-1

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Lane Departure 103.2 450.2 0.71 3.12

Intersections 17.4 209.2 0.12 1.45

Pedestrians 12.6 58.2 0.09 0.4

Bicyclists 2 27.6 0.01 0.19

Older Drivers 35.6 177.8 0.25 1.23

Motorcyclists 19 131.2 0.13 0.91
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Groups of similar project types
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

33. Present the overall effectiveness of HSIP subprograms.

Systemic Treatments

34. Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2015

HSIP Sub-program Types Target 

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)

Other1

(5-yr 

avg)

Other2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other3

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-Median Cable 

Barrier -install completed 

in 2014

Crash Data

Year - 2015

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

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)

Other-1

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Rumble Strips Head on 0.4 3.2 0.2 1.4
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

The 2016 systemic evaluation of centerline rumble strip performance looks at an expanded set of 

rumble strip installations compared to the 2015 HSIP report (2014 data). Increases in latest 5 yr 

performance data is due to major increase in lane miles of exposure.
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Project Evaluation

36. Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Function

al Class

Improveme

nt Category

Improvement Type BefFata

l

BefSeriou

s 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injurie

s

BefPD

O

BefTota

l

AftFata

l

AftSeriou

s 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injurie

s

AftPD

O

AftTota

l

Evaluatio

n Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

AUBURN, 

MINOT AVE @ 

HOTEL RD

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

3 27 8 38 11 2 13 3.41

MADISON, 

ROUTE 201 @ 

ROUTE 148

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

2 5 1 8 9 9 3.70
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

BRUNSWICK, 

ROUTE 1

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 4 5 5 7 12 -0.44

GORHAM, 

ROUTE 22 AND 

BURNHAM R

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

5 2 7 4 1 5 0.20

SANFORD, 

HANSON RIDGE 

RD

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

4 4 1 8 9 -4.99

WISCASSET, 

INT. RTE 1 &

RTE 27

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

4 7 11 7 7 2.04
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

NEWBURGH -

ROUTE 69 AND 

ROUTE 9

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 13 1 15 1 7 8 9.46

BRUNSWICK -

MAINE ST AND 

RTE 24

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 4 4 5 1 6 -0.38

WATERVILLEOAKLANDUrban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

signal coordination

5 95 74 174 15 153 141 309 -6.13

BANGOR, 

HOGAN ROAD

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 74 44 119 5 65 53 123 -102.44
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

BANGOR, 

MAINE AVENUE 

@ GODFREY

Urban 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop 

to roundabout

5 5 4 4 0.03

STANDISH, 

BOUNDARY RD

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

7 5 12 1 5 6 1.64

WATERBORO 

OLD ALFRED & 

RT 202

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

3 9 12 7 3 10 -33.02

AUGUSTA, 

EASTERN AVE & 

HOSPITAL

Urban 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

10 13 23 3 18 21 9.93
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

MONMOUTH, 

INT RT 202 & 

132

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

4 2 6 5 5 10 2.55

NORRIDGEWOC

K, HOTEL 

STREET & MAIN 

STREET

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

2 5 6 13 1 8 9 53.25

FARMINGTON, 

HIGH ST & 

MAPLE AV

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 1 5.56

BANGOR, 

CEDAR & THIRD 

ST.

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

7 3 10 1 3 3 7 -4.34
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

OTISFIELD, 

GORE ROAD

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

1 1 2 2 2 10.32

GREENE, NORTH 

RIVER ROAD

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

6 2 8 2 2 7 11 -5.01

MILLINOCKET, 

RTE. 11

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

2 3 5 2 2 1.26

DRESDEN, 

ROUTES 197 

AND 128

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

2 1 3 6 2 1 3 1066.94
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

ALFRED, RTE 

111 @ 

KENNEBUNK RD

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

5 8 13 1 10 4 15 36.12

BREWER -

WILSON @ 

ACME

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

5 5 1 2 3 -6.22

BREWER -

WILSON @ 

MAIN

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - audible 

device

7 15 22 10 19 29 -36.99

BREWER -

STATE @ 

EASTERN 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at intersection

1 8 9 6 5 11 -30.82
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 Maine Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system.

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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