New Hampshire

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

  

   

Prepared by: NH

  
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 40

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 40

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 44

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 50

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 50

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 64

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) .......................................... 67

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 68

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 73

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 78

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................84

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................88
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries

on all public roads through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects.  This includes

both infrastructure‐related projects and non‐infrastructure projects, selected and justified by proven

data‐driven approaches.  All highway safety improvement projects should be chosen and implemented

with the goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on public roads and the achievement of State

safety targets.   Some projects will directly impact these performance measures through the

implementation of engineering or behavioral countermeasures, while others may advance the data

systems and analysis capabilities of the State to more accurately identify locations with the highest

potential for safety improvement, evaluate the performance of highway safety improvement projects,

or identify high risk roadway characteristics and driver behaviors.

In 2006 FHWA established a new approach to advancing safety by focusing on performance.  In order to

effectively meet performance targets, States must apply limited resources to the areas that are most

likely to achieve results.   The requirement to develop and regularly update a SHSP ensures that this

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

fatalities and severe injuries and fatalities and severe injury rates per vehicle mile traveled.   Several

other performance measures of specific interest to the State are listed in the NH SHSP.

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

SHSP New Hampshire Driving Toward Zero in recognition of the National plan, and created a public

outreach program with the same name to promote change in New Hampshire’s safety culture

(nhdtz.com).   The initiative recognizes that even one traffic death is unacceptable and sets the

aggressive goal to reduce all deaths on the Nation’s highways, a goal virtually achieved in the aviation

industry in the past several decades.  Dozens of public and private stakeholders from across the State

have come together in a collaborative effort to update and carry out the strategies in the SHSP.  The

vision of Driving Toward Zero is embodied in NH’s goal of reducing the number of fatalities and serious

injuries by 50% by 2030, equaling an annual reduction of 3.4%.  This is measured as a five‐year rolling

average with the most recent data.  Maine and Vermont share this target, and to that end MaineDOT

and VTrans have formed a tri‐state collaborative partnership with NHDOT to more effectively reach the

collective regional goal.   NHDOT has also incorporated the reduction of fatalities into their Balanced

Scorecard, representing one of the twelve Strategic Objectives of the agency.   

  The concept of a focused approach has been further reinforced with requirements for data‐driven

decision making and resource allocation. 23 USC 148(c)(2), as amended by section 1401(a)(1) of

SAFETEA‐LU, Identification and Analysis of Highway Safety Problems and Opportunities, delineates

specific requirements for determining safety problem identification and countermeasure analyses. The

legislation also provides flexibility in the use of HSIP funds to address a State’s non‐infrastructure safety

issues. It is clear from legislation that safety funds are to be used on the most effective treatments and
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

activities at the locations with the greatest needs, or potential thereof, and that the best available data

is to be used to determine the proposed treatments.  NH has been moving forward with implementation

of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) as a participant in the NCHRP 17‐50 Lead State Initiative to

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

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

MAP‐21 continued building on the concept of a safety data system that has the capability to identify key

safety problems, establish their relative severity, and then adopt strategic and performance‐based goals

to maximize safety.   Recent improvements to the NH data system include a phased initiative to

implement electronic crash reporting through the State’s Crash Report Management System (CRMS),

the compilation of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE),

and the completion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Traffic Records

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

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

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

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

Program and the HSIP through the State SHSP.  The 2012 version (2nd edition) of the NH SHSP identifies 9

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

∙         Adolescent Drivers

∙         Comprehensive Safety Data Improvement  

∙         Crash Locations

∙         Distracted Driving

∙         Impaired Driving

∙         Motorcycles and Vulnerable Roadway Users

∙         Older Drivers

∙         Speeding

∙         Vehicle Occupant Protection

The “4‐E’s” of safety (education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency medical services) should be

considered in selection and development of HSIP projects, however the intent of the HSIP is to primarily

target engineering‐related countermeasure improvements.   The crash types of special interest have

been identified in the Crash Locations CEA.  The next major update to the SHSP is scheduled for 2016,

while more minor updates to the plan and strategies outlined in each section should be reviewed at

least annually.

With respect to eligibility for funding, 23 USC 148(a)(4) provides a sample listing of eligible highway

safety improvement project types. However, it is important to note that only data‐driven projects that
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

target strategies identified in the State SHSP are eligible for funding in NH.   Furthermore, given the

limited funding available, funds should be prioritized to help ensure that projects with the greatest

safety return will be the top priority.   For example addressing crashes involving animals is a possible

eligible activity per MAP‐21, but since it is not addressed in the current version of the SHSP as a CEA or

related strategy, and higher safety needs have been identified, HSIP funds should not be used for that

purpose in NH.

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

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

broader Federal‐aid project should be funded from the same source funds as the broader project when

that safety feature is included in the broader project, not HSIP funds.  This allows the HSIP funds to be

reserved for stand‐alone safety projects thereby allowing for true targeting of safety needs.   This is

consistent with the provision of separate funding for safety projects and with FHWA's long‐standing

position on the use of safety funds.

Data in this report reflect 2013 crash data in order to align numbers with the report that Highway Safety

Agency has to submit to NHTSA.
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the

effectiveness of the improvements.  

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

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

maintained sites and are evaluated using the same methodology.   The majority of rural

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

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

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

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

improve volume data on all public roads.
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other‐Regional Planning Commission staff

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

area, local experience/insight on crashes, etc.   

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

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

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

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

encouraged to incorporate the HSIP process in their Transportation Improvement Plan

development.

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

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

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

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

projects that have potential for safety improvements. 
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

  

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other‐Regional Planning Commission Staff

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

the last reporting period.

Multi‐disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other‐HSIP crash data reporting aligns with Highway Safety Agency crash data reporting. Both

using 2013 crash data for the report.

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

would like to elaborate.
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

most recent years of data and then the HSE performs the Network Screening and produces the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highway Safety Plan”.  

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

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

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

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

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

classifications of roadway.  

Though there is no longer a specific pot of money for an HRRR program, NHDOT chooses to

continue to fund improvement on these roadways though the HSIP program.   A statewide

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

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

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

  

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.  

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low‐Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other:      

   

   

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐Run Off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

no medians on local roads

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐EPDO Lane miles Roadside features
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Other   Other‐Site Subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

EPDO

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐Run Off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

Are local roads (non‐state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

EPDO

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐need requirement MIRE and HSM

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C   

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐Run Off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Low‐Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐RSA request from local  agencies

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 100

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

crashes only

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Run off the Road

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

Yes

No

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

Yes
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C   

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

Other‐RSA local agency

Are local roads (non‐state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Other    

   

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐RSA request by local

agency  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐RSA rquested by local

agency

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐Run off the Road Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐Site subtype

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

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 Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

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

Other Other‐F‐‐terminal Replacements Other Other‐Other Median Barriers

   

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?  

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other:  

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other‐no change
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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

would like to elaborate.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

network.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant means to improve highway safety in the State.

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

countermeasures are installed systemically at the selected sites.

  

In 2009, the State identified its first systemic project focusing on rural signing improvements.  Since that

time, the following additional systemic programs have been implemented: shoulder and centerline

rumble strips and stripes, median barrier improvements, guardrail and end terminal improvements,

rural curve signing and delineation, and an Intersection Safety Improvement Plan (ISIP).  These programs

are expected to continue in the next few years, with the ISIP growing in levels of effort as the phased

implementation process begins.

  

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

effectiveness of its implemented countermeasures.   Evaluation of systemic projects should be
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

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

more or less funding, and whether the sites receiving treatments were correctly identified as those with

potential to reduce fatal and severe crashes.  A new feature for Safety Analyst is planned within the next

couple of years with the capability to easily identify and evaluate systemic projects.   Information

showing the overall effectiveness of the current programs will also guide the Committee’s review of

funding allocations for projects selected in each project identification method; e.g. if systemic

countermeasure projects are more cost‐effective than other types of HSIP projects then a greater

amount of funding should be spent on them in the program.

  

The Road Safety Audit program is changing the application criteria and when the applications can be

accepted. The program will move to having a application deadline submitted once a year.  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 15000000   94 % 15000000   94 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA‐LU)       

HRRR Special Rule 900000    6 % 900000    6 %

Penalty Transfer	‐	

Section 154

      

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants	‐		

Section 163

      

Incentive Grants

(Section 406)

Other Federal‐aid

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

      

State and Local Funds
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Totals 15900000 100% 15900000 100%

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

$18,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$18,000.00

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

$374,000.00

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

$374,000.00

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

period?

$0.00
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

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

Trust Fund (HTF) will likely limit money for transportation disbursements to states. FHWA may need to

institute cash management measures which would involve delayed or partial reimbursements to the

states. The impact to The State of New Hampshire and the Transportation Improvement program will

result in general uncertainty and will have a significant impact to funding the State Ten Year

Transportation Improvement Plan. Due to limited State Highway Trust Fund revenues, the State of New

Hampshire uses Turnpike Toll Credits to meet the match of the federal program. As a result, there are

limited State dollars to support the federal program and as a consequence, the STIP becomes dependent

on the availability of federal funds. Any loss of federal funds could very well lead to suspension of work

and delay of future State and local transportation projects. As a result of the Congressional discussion on

the HTF and MAP‐21 reauthorization, the Department of Transportation has employed a moderate risk

management strategy in utilizing federal funds with a strong commitment to funding current

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

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

Hampshire Department of Transportation sought the full authorization of federal funds for current year

construction cash needs on existing multi‐year construction projects to ensure funds are available to

maintain the current federally funded construction program. Taking proactive steps in anticipation of

possible end of fiscal year redistribution of federal funds, the Department has maintained several

projects in the September advertising schedule for any anticipated redistribution of federal funds. The

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

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

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

impact project schedules for as long as practical. We look forward to resolution of this issue through

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

our critical transportation infrastructure projects.  

On July 31, 2014 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives agreed to fund a short term fix of the

Federal Highway Trust Fund. This short term plan provided funding through May 2015. Recent action by

Congress extended authorization for two months through July 2015, but did not included additional
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

funding for the program. This funding uncertainty is placing the NHDOT in the position of deferring

planned advertising of construction projects beyond July. If Congress fails to act, the State will also not

be reimbursed fully for construction expenses on federally eligible infrastructure projects paid out to

private contractors. Just through the end of the calendar year, this may create a substantial cash flow

problem for the State.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

The Road Safety Audit application criteria has been revised and the program has shifted from a rolling

application submittal to a December 1st deadline annually.
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

General Listing of ProjectsList each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period.

Project Improvement

Category

Output

HSIPCost

TotalCost

FundingCategory

FunctionalClassification

AADT

Speed

RoadwayOwnership

Barnstead#14121E(PEcharges)

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ modernization/replacement

1Miles

150000 3500000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

7370 40 State

HighwayAgency

Belmont#16202(PEcharges)

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ addleft‐turn lane

1Miles

5000 2325000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

7900 45 State

HighwayAgency

Belmont#16203(PEcharges)

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add

left‐turn lane

1Miles

150000 1360000 HSIP

(Section 148)

Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

13190

50 State

HighwayAgency

Brookline #40092(PEcharges)

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ addleft‐turn lane

1Miles

30000 205000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

2000 50 State

HighwayAgency
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Concord#28053(ROWcharges)

Roadway Roadway

narrowing (road diet,roadwayreconfiguration)

3Miles

10000 1650000 HSIP

(Section 148)

UrbanMinorCollector

19719

35 City of

MunicipalHighwayAgency

District 3#24863

Roadside Barrier‐ metal Miles 1102750 1104000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

55 State

HighwayAgency

Exeter‐Hampton#28535

Roadside Barrier ‐ 

concrete

10Miles

3003484.7

3003484.7

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

42000

65 State

HighwayAgency

Farmington#16212(PE &ROWcharges)

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ addleft‐turn lane

1Miles

180000 1753924 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

15500

40 State

HighwayAgency

Henniker#28735(PE &

ROWcharges)

Pedestrians andbicyclists Installsidewalk

0Miles

8000 249431 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

4872 30 State

HighwayAgency
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Swanzey#15697(PE & Concharges)

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify control‐ all‐way stop toroundabout

1Miles

1242804 1871895 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

14090

30 State

HighwayAgency

Statewide 28137

(concharges)

Roadway signs andtraffic control Curve‐related warning signs

and flashers

150000 200000 HRRR

SpecialRule

RuralMinorCollector

50 State

HighwayAgency

Statewide 28138(Concharges)

Roadway signs andtraffic control Roadwaysigns and traffic control‐ other

500000 700000 HRRR

SpecialRule

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

50 State

HighwayAgency

statewide28513

Roadway Rumble strips

‐ edge or shoulder

500000 500000 HSIP

(Section 148)

Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

50 State

HighwayAgency

statewide28653

Roadside Barrier endtreatments (crashcushions, terminals)

358518.75

483519 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

50 State

HighwayAgency

Statewide 28655

(PEcharges)

Roadside Barrier end

treatments (crash

cushions, terminals)

5000 1155000 HSIP

(Section 148)

Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

50 State

HighwayAgency
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Statewide 29342

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify trafficsignal ‐ add backplates

137500 175000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

45 State

HighwayAgency

Lancaster#16208

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify control

‐ modifications to

roundabout

1Miles

127601 1313572 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

11270

30 State

HighwayAgency

Lebanon#29362(Pe ROW& concharges)

Pedestrians andbicyclists Pedestriansignal ‐ PedestrianHybrid Beacon

1Miles

268915 268915 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

6900 30 State

HighwayAgency

Loudon#24941PE & Con

charges)

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ add backplates

1Miles

1289580 1419589 HSIP

(Section 148)

Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

15500

45 State

HighwayAgency

Manchester #2004(concharges)

Intersection geometryIntersectiongeometrics ‐ modifyskew angle

1Miles

1558 118614 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

4100 45 City of

MunicipalHighwayAgency

meredith#16470(PE &

ROW

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add

auxiliary through lane

1Miles

97500 612500 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ 

11595

55 State

HighwayAgency
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

charges) Other Pelham#29338(PE &ROWcharges)

Intersection geometryIntersection geometry ‐ other

1Miles

30000 155000 HSIP

(Section 148)

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

11500

40 State

HighwayAgency

Rochester #27873

Intersection geometryIntersectiongeometrics ‐ modifyintersection corner

radius

1Miles

77000 120000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

7400 45 State

HighwayAgency

Seabrook#16444(PE &Rowcharges)

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ addauxiliary through lane

1Miles

2200 2448000 HSIP

(Section 148)

UrbanMinorArterial

1690 45 State

HighwayAgency

statewide16259

Roadside Barrier ‐ 

cable

Miles 63.17 1046738 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

45 State

HighwayAgency

Statewide 24881

Roadside Barrier endtreatments (crashcushions, terminals)

Miles 652 1084419 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

45 State

HighwayAgency

Statewid Roadway signs and

traffic control Curve‐

Miles 902971. 902971. HSIP

(Sectio

RuralPrincipal

40 State

Highway
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

e 28135 related warning signs

and flashers

45 45 n 148) Arterial ‐ 

Other

Agency 
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 134 126.4 119 114.8 114.2

Number of serious injuries 676 626.6 597.2 585.2 560.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.01 0.96 0.91 0.88 0.88

Serious injury rate (per

HMVMT)

5.08 4.73 4.55 4.5 4.32

*Performance measure data is presented using a five‐year rolling average.
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2013

FunctionClassification

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

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATE

5.84 17.33 0.46 1.37

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHERFREEWAYS ANDEXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

13.13 41.76 1.2 3.83

RURAL MINORARTERIAL

13.5 49.31 1.29 4.7

RURAL MINOR

COLLECTOR

12.04 59.97 1.07 5.32

RURAL MAJORCOLLECTOR

5.84 23.55 1.02 4.13

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR

STREET

10.95 53.75 2.69 13.21

URBAN PRINCIPAL 8.39 37.76 0.52 2.34
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

ARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATEURBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

FREEWAYS AND

EXPRESSWAYS

4.38 18.21 0.45 1.85

URBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

12.04 59.53 0.97 4.8

URBAN MINOR

ARTERIAL

9.49 103.51 0.56 6.08

URBAN MINORCOLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR

COLLECTOR

8.39 38.65 1 4.63

URBAN LOCAL ROADOR STREET

9.49 52.87 1.34 7.49
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Year ‐ 2011

Roadway Ownership Number of

fatalities

Number of seriousinjuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

SH

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 87 362 0.86 3COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 21 127 1.35 8CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 12 108 0.8 7STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0RAILROAD 0 0 0 0STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT,

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

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

Similar to infrastructure‐related projects, non‐infrastructure projects should be consistent with the NH

SHSP and based on crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other data‐supported means. HSIP

funds should be used to implement proven, effective strategies in order to support the State’s safety

performance targets. Strategies should either add to existing successful non‐infrastructure programs

(but not replace existing funding sources), or be used to implement new activities proven through

research. In addition, the safety benefit and economic effectiveness of both infrastructure and non‐

infrastructure projects should be considered during the Project Selection Process described later in this

manual. Non‐infrastructure projects must be approved by the NHDOT HSIP Committee in competition

with all other projects.  

Examples of eligible non‐infrastructure projects include behavioral countermeasures; safety culture

programs; transportation safety planning; collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data; and road

safety audits. The HSIP Committee has previously funded data improvements, road safety audits, and

safety culture and public outreach efforts of the New Hampshire Driving Toward Zero (NHDTZ) program.

HSIP contributes about $250,000 annually to NHDTZ, or about 3% of total HSIP funding. There are many

opportunities to build on these efforts and to coordinate with other agencies in non‐infrastructure

programs.  

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65.  

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per

capita)

0.194 0.168 0.16 0.156 0.118

Serious injury rate

(per capita)

0.44 0.4 0.402 0.394 0.328

Fatality and serious

injury rate (per capita)

0.634 0.566 0.56 0.55 0.444

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

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

VMT rate for K = K/HMVMT for 2012 where k=22,HMVMT=128.61  

VMT rate for K =0.17  

For the special rule VMT rate for K=K/# of people 65 yrs or older for 2012, where k=22, # people =147  
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Special rule for K = 22/147=0.15  

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

Special rule for A=65/147=0.44  

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state?  

No
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?  

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other:  

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other:  

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

Road Safety Audit application criteria has been developed and the Road safety audit program has moved

from a rolling application to a annual application submittal deadline.
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2013

HSIP‐related SHSPEmphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of

fatalities

Number ofseriousinjuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injuryrate (perHMVMT)

Ot1

Lane Departure Run‐off‐road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 47Intersections Intersections 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 13Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 7.8 32 0.06 0.25 7.8 Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 0.8 7 0.01 0.05 0.8 Older Drivers all older driver

crashes

23 57.4 0.18 0.44 23 

Motorcyclists All 16.8 102.4 0.13 0.79 16Work Zones All 2.8 11.8 0.02 0.09 2.8 Data All 114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 11
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Groups of similar project typesPresent the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year ‐ 2013

HSIP Sub‐programTypes

Target CrashType

Number offatalities

Number ofseriousinjuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injuryrate (perHMVMT)

Ot1

Segments All 89.8 391.2 0.7 3.03 89Left Turn Crash Left‐turn 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 13Median Barrier Run‐off‐road 11.4 42.8 0.09 0.33 11Sign Replacement AndImprovement

Run‐off‐road 114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 11

Horizontal Curve Run‐off‐road 43.2 168.2 0.33 1.3 43Right Angle Crash Angle 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 13Local Safety All 31.8 198.4 1.55 9.68 31Low‐Cost SpotImprovements

All 114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 11

Crash Data All 114.2 560.2 0.89 4.34 11Intersection Intersections 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 13Roadway Departure Run‐off‐road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 47
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Systemic TreatmentsPresent the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year ‐ 2013

Systemic improvement Target Crash

Type

Number offatalities

Number ofseriousinjuries

Fatality rate(perHMVMT)

Serious injuryrate (perHMVMT)

O1

Install/Improve Signing Night‐time 43.2 168.2 0.33 1.3 43Rumble Strips Run‐off‐road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 47Upgrade Guard Rails Run‐off‐road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 47Other‐F‐‐terminal Replacements Run‐off‐road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 47Add/Upgrade/Modify/RemoveTraffic Signal

Angle 13.4 136 0.1 1.05 13

Install/Improve Pavement Markingand/or Delineation

Night‐time 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 47

Other‐intersections Non‐

intersection

13.4 136 0.1 1.05 13

local safety All 31.8 198.4 1.55 9.68 31Other‐Other Median Barriers Run‐off‐road 47.2 194.2 0.37 1.51 47
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

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

which you would like to elaborate.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

network.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant means to improve highway safety in the State.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

countermeasures are installed systemically at the selected sites.  
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Project EvaluationProvide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional).

Location Function

al Class

Improvement Category

Improvement Type Bef‐

Fatal

Bef‐SeriousInjury

Bef‐AllInjuries

Bef‐PDO

Bef‐Total

Aft‐Fatal

Aft‐SeriousInjury

Aft‐All

Injuries

Whitefield Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Shouldertreatments

Widen shoulder ‐ pavedor other

0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 

Whitefield Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Roadway Roadway ‐ other 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 

Derry Urban

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiontraffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ modernization/replacement

0 0 10 23 33 0 0 2 

NewLondon

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Roadway Roadway narrowing

(road diet, roadway

reconfiguration)

1 2 6 17 26 0 0 3 
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Boscawen Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiongeometry

Intersection geometry ‐ other

0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 

Holderness

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiongeometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ 

modify skew angle

0 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 

Epsom Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiontraffic control

Intersection signing ‐ addbasic advance warning

1 0 5 10 16 0 0 2 

Pittsfield Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiontraffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ modernization/replacement

0 0 8 14 22 0 0 2 

Brentwood

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiontraffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ modernization/replacement

1 2 12 11 26 0 0 4 

Brentwood

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiongeometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add

right‐turn lane

0 0 2 4 6 0 0 4 
2015 New Hampshire Highway Safety Improvement Program

Greenland Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiongeometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ addright‐turn lane

0 0 5 24 29 0 1 7 

Boscowan Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiontraffic control

Modify control ‐ modifications to

roundabout

0 0 18 18 0 0 2 

Hampstead‐Atkinson

UrbanMinorCollector

Intersectiongeometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ addright‐turn lane

0 0 4 10 14 0 0 1 

Lyme Rural

MinorCollector

Speedmanagement

Traffic calming feature 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 

Effingham Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiontraffic control

Intersection signing ‐ addenhanced advancewarning (double‐upand/or oversize)

3 0 2 4 9 0 0 0 

Epping Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersection

geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add

auxiliary through lane

0 1 25 47 73 0 0 1 
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

87

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

   
2015 New Hampshire     Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

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 non‐

infrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities,

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.  

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

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

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