Page 1 of 79 

INDIANA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 79

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 30

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 30

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 34

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 39

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 39

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 55

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 58

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 60

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 60

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 61

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 61

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 65

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 72
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 79

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.” 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 79

Executive Summary 

As required under 23 U.S.C. § 148(h), the following is the annual report to the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018. The 

content of this report combines information regarding the implementation status of the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) and associated sub-programs including the High Risk Rural Roads Program 

(HRRRP). This combined HSIP report, does not include the annual rail-highway crossing safety report as 

required under 23 U.S.C. § 130(g). INDOT is exercising the option provided to the states by 23 U.S.C. § 148 

guidance, of preparing and submitting to FHWA separate reports. 

The format of the annual HSIP report is in accordance with the FHWA online reporting tool. The focus of the 

report centers on development and implementation of the core federal aid safety program and associated 

safety spending in Indiana for FFY 2018, beginning October 1, 2017 and ending on September 30, 2018. In 

addition to the core safety programs, this report discusses the ongoing evolution of the INDOT asset 

management program mechanism for setting spending priorities for all projects on roads under INDOT 

jurisdiction.

Over the last three calendar years Indiana has experienced a significant rise in the estimated vehicle miles of 

travel now estimated to be 830.11 Hundred Million Vehicle Miles of Travel (HMVMT) or a 1.2% increase above 

the CY 2016 estimate of 826.11 HMVMT. The number of fatal injuries rose from 821 in calendar year 2016 to 

915 in 2017, which represents an increase of 11.4%. Due to the increased VMT, the Fatality Rate increase 

was 1.101 fatalities per HMVMT in 2017 compared to 1.031 in 2016. It should be noted that the rise in fatalities 

for 2017 may be an outlier due to a larger that normal growth in VMT in 2016 and more exposure to crash risk. 

The 5-year rolling average rate of fatalities increased to 1.040 HMVMT in CY 2017 as compared the rate of 

1.018 in CY 2016.

Suspected serious injuries were 3389 in 2017, a slightly lower number than the 3505 that were reported in 

2016. Due to the larger VMT the suspected serious injury rate was 4.079 in 2017 compared to 4.394 in 2016. 

An actual comparison to prior years is complicated by the implementation by Indiana of a new injury 

classification methodology that’s described in detail in the response to Question 33.

In Late 2014 a new uniform method was deployed for declaring an injury to be “Incapacitating”; the definition 

previously allowed under the MMUUCC Third Edition and previously used by Indiana to classify injury severity 

for crash events and casualties. The revised method used to classify incapacitating injures was deployed in 

response to agreement among members of the Indiana Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC); that 

the use of officer’s judgment in regard to determination of incapacitating injuries in past years had been 

inconsistently applied. Inconsistency in classifying serious injuries was noticed both between officers, and 

regionally, among certain police agencies that were either instructing officers or developing informal 

approaches to marking injury severity that was different from other peer agencies. Indiana’s electronic 

reporting tool currently classifies a crash participant as having an incapacitating injury if that person has been 

transported from the scene for medical treatment at an emergency room or trauma center.

The Indiana TRCC is presently developing a new electronic reporting tool that will attempt to address the 

change in definition of Class “A” injuries as published in the MMUCC 4th Edition. The goal is to transition 

Indiana’s crash records system toward reporting suspected serious injuries in compliance with the current 

safety reporting regulations promulgated in 2016 to support the federal administration of transportation funding. 

The regulation included a requirement that states report Suspected Serious Injuries using the criteria 

established in the fourth edition of the “Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria” (MMUCC). This linkage to a 

federal regulation of what had historically been an advisory document’s definition put Indiana’s current 

definition of incapacitating injury out of compliance. The new regulations for establishing and reporting traffic 

safety performance measures necessitate that Indiana determine a way to approximate a level of injuries 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 79

(renamed Suspected Serious Injuries in MMUCC 4th Edition) so that current Indiana crash records could be 

used to calculate historic and projected traffic safety performance counts of probable Class “A” Injuries on the 

KABCO scale.

In establishing a proxy for missing data regarding Class “A” injuries, Indiana analyzed an incapacitating injury 

count that remained reasonably consistent across the 10 years prior to the reclassification (in years 2004 to 

2013), as a percentage of total numbers of non-fatal injuries. The number of reported probable KABCO class 

“A” injuries (formerly “Incapacitating injuries”) were evaluated to establish the percentage of non-fatal injuries 

they contributed total injury counts. The annual average percent contribution of “A” injuries prior to the 2014 

definition change the contribution was 7.1%. Weighting this value to account for an increases in injury counts in 

the most recent three years of the 10 year period, the value is adjusted to 7.2% of all injuries. Indiana intends 

to use that percentage of non-fatal injuries for each year to represent the number of “Suspected Serious 

Injuries.”

Note that the 7.2% share of injuries is valid only when examining statewide crashes on all roads in Indiana. A 

value for any subset of the data requires its own historic analysis using the same methodology to establish the 

percentage contribution of “suspected Serious Injuries” to all non-fatal injuries in that subset. In the case of 

statewide percent of Non-Motorist “A” Injuries of All Non-Motorist Non-Fatal Injuries (Average 13.0% 2004-

2013) Non-Motorist Fatalities of All Fatalities (Average 10.5% 2004-2013)

We ask that FHWA consider the Indiana’s described reporting methodology for as part of any review of Indiana 

Crash data and Performance Target setting. The projections produced by this methodology represent a 

mathematical baseline before further adjustments to reflect consideration of non-highway influences that affect 

highway travel and traveler risk-taking. These influences would include, but are not limited to, economic 

change, technology proliferation, and weather.

In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018, the total expected obligation of federal program funds for safety infrastructure 

improvements, from all programs (excluding the annual rail-highway crossing safety program) is expected to 

be about $55.9 million dollars. All projects approved for funding in HSIP or HRRRP programs are required to 

address at least one of the emphasis areas defined in the Indiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). 

The selection and prioritization of all safety projects on roads under INDOT jurisdiction, including those funded 

with HSIP and HRRRP funds utilize the INDOT Asset Management Process. The submission of the documents 

that describe INDOT’s countermeasure selection methodology originally took place in September of 2008 with 

the submission of the FFY 2008 HSIP/HRRRP report. While numerous refinements to the asset management 

program have taken place the underlying methodology has not changed. For roads under INDOT jurisdiction, 

regardless of funding program, the established selection process for safety projects prioritizes locations of 

highest need in terms of reducing the severity and frequency of crashes. The goal for all safety projects is to 

select the most appropriate and cost effective countermeasures available. The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety 

(OTS) ensures that each candidate safety project has a cost effective choice of proposed solution(s), the 

eligibility for federal safety program funding is determined and the relative priority of the candidate project’s 

needs is established. All safety program projects address one or more of the emphasis areas enumerated in 

the Indiana SHSP.

Guiding the selection of projects on local jurisdiction roads, the document titled “Highway Safety Improvement 

Program Local Project Selection Guidance,” issued on December 1, 2010 and “Special Rules for Eligibility of 

Highway Safety Improvement Projects,” issued August 1, 2013, described the selection methodology for local 

HSIP projects. In FFY 2016 INDOT has revised the Indiana’s SHSP and will subsequently revise the HSIP 

Local Project Selection Guidance.

INDOT fiscal policy is to make one-third of its total FHWA apportionment from HSIP available to local public 

agencies for safety projects on local system roads. In FFY 2018 the set aside for locally sponsored safety 

projects was approximately $18.3 million. Individual Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), receive 

annual apportionments of obligation authority and a predetermined amount of obligation authority is also set-
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 79

aside for the use of rural public highway agencies. The “Highway Safety Improvement Program Local Project 

Selection Guidance,” provides local agencies guidance on the structure and content of applications for HSIP 

and HRRRP project funding. INDOT maintains a web-based information source on the various state and local 

safety programs, which is accessible at, http://www.in.gov/indot/2357.htm . 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 79

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The HSIP in Indiana provides for infrastructure safety improvements on both state system roads and local 

roads. Each year, one third of HSIP funding is allocated for use on the local road network. However, the local 

HSIP program has a somewhat different structure from the state system program.

State System program: 

The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) leads INDOT’s coordinated efforts to identify locations with safety 

needs, plan improvements, prioritize and program traffic safety improvement projects on the Indiana State 

system of highways. OTS works with each of INDOT’s district offices, as well as the divisions of Design, 

Planning, Traffic Engineering, LPA & Grant Administration, Capital Asset Management Office and Budget 

Divisions. 

In order to identify potential safety improvement projects, OTS conducts an annual network wide screening 

process to identify possible locations that appear to experience higher than nominal safety risk. OTS also 

gathers input from various internal and external groups regarding any locations of concern. The principal 

internal partners that provide key input in the conduct of road safety assessments are the Maintenance and 

Technical Services Divisions including the Traffic Engineering offices in each district. After refinement of data 

records, analysis of target locations leads to identification of candidate locations for safety interventions that 

include both spot and systemic safety improvements.

In the areas of finance, budget and project prioritization/programming, the Manager of the OTS acts as the 

chair to the INDOT Traffic Safety Asset Management Team to prioritize all proposed safety projects located on 

the INDOT system of highways. The six INDOT district traffic engineering offices act as voting members of the 

team and the INDOT Office of Capital Project Funds Management provides coordination with INDOTs other 

asset teams and executive management. The Traffic Safety Asset Management Team acts to deliberate the 

relative need and priority of proposed traffic safety projects on INDOT managed roadways. The overall 

budgeting of obligation authority for safety projects on both the state and local road systems is coordinated 

with the Division of Budget and Project Accounting.

Project design is conducted by the INDOT’s Highway Design Division and each project is managed by an 

assigned project manager utilizing the Scheduling Project Mangement System. 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 79

Final evaluation of project safety performance is conducted by OTS in the fourth year following project 

construction.

Local Safety Program: 

In the State of Indiana, Local Public Agencies (LPAs) operate and maintain all local public roads. At the 

inception of the INDOT safety program under SAFTEA-LU a policy was determined by the INDOT Finance 

business unit to make one third of its total annual apportionment of HSIP funding available to local public 

agencies for safety projects on local system roads. An annual apportionment of obligation authority is assigned 

to each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) serving Group 1 and Group 2 urban areas. A standardized 

population formula is used to determine the assigned funding made available to individual MPOs. For public 

agencies in rural (non MPO areas) a predetermined amount of HSIP funds are made available for funding 

eligible projects. The aforementioned population formula is also used to determine the total amount of the 

HSIP funding allotted for projects located in rural areas. Rules have been established allowing LPAs to apply to 

INDOT for determination of project eligibility to utilize HSIP funds.

Guidance and outreach efforts are routinely made by INDOT and the Local Technical Assistance Program 

(LTAP), in regard to selection of HSIP projects. INDOT’s guidance to LPAs advocates the value of low cost 

systemic safety improvements to proactively address the risk of severe crashes on their entire roadway 

system, along with the treatment of locations with high risk of frequent severe crashes. 

INDOT sponsors an ongoing program with LTAP called the Hazard Elimination Project for Local Roads and 

Streets (HELPERS) Program. The HELPERS Program coordinates with rural planning organizations (RPOs) 

as well as rural counties, cities and towns to assist them in identifying, analyzing and prioritizing their safety 

improvement needs. The HELPERS Program advises LPAs regarding management of safety risks and assists 

rural area LPAs in submitting project level funding proposals to INDOT for determination of HSIP project 

eligibility. 

The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety makes determination of eligibility for all applications to utilize HSIP funding. 

OTS reviews all safety improvement project proposals for compliance with HSIP eligibility requirements as 

defined in Indiana’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Eligible local projects are recommended to the INDOT 

Division of LPA & Grant Administration for programming approval and inclusion in the STIP and relevant TIP 

document. The LPA & Grants Division develops an interagency agreement with the relevant LPA to guide each 

projects development. The relevant INDOT district then assigns a project manager to coordinate development 

of the project design. 

Regarding internal coordination of local safety project design and contract preparation, technical review of local 

agency design plans is conducted by the Highway Design Division, while contract letting is conducted by the 

INDOT Construction Management Division.

In addition, OTS consults with Design and Maintenance Divisions regarding new safety improvement design 

practices and the Office of Traffic Administration, regarding new Standards and Specifications. OTS also 

coordinates with the Research Division regarding the approval of safety related research efforts under the Joint 

Transportation Research Project (JTRP) and to plan implementation of successful research products.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety is located within the Traffic Engineering Divison and is in turn part of the 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 79

Engineering Service and Asset Management Business Unit. The primary functions of the Office of Traffic 

Safety is planning, prioritization and analysis in support of the HSIP in the state of Indiana.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Formula via MPOs 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

HSIP Funds for use on state system roads are allocated statewide via INDOT's Asset Management Process.

Local HSIP Funds are allocated regionally to MPOs via a population formula and to rural areas by an LTAP 

managed assistance program.

Analysis of crash data related to SHSP Emphasis Areas informs selection and programming of various 

systemic safety improvement projects.

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

In the State of Indiana, Local Public Agencies (LPAs) operate and maintain all local public roads. There are no 

designated tribal roads in the state. INDOT policy is to make one third of its total annual apportionment of HSIP 

funding available to local public agencies for safety projects on local public roads. An annual apportionment of 

obligation authority is assigned to each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) serving Group 1 and Group 

2 urban areas. A standardized population formula is used to determine allocation of all federal aid funding 

made available to individual MPOs. For public agencies in rural (non MPO areas) Group 3 (incorporated cities 

and towns) and rural Group 4 (counties and un-incorporated towns), a predetermined amount of HSIP funds 

are made available for funding eligible projects. The aforementioned population formula is also used to 

determine the total amount of the HSIP allotted for projects located in rural areas. 

Rules have been established allowing LPAs to apply to INDOT for determination of project eligibility to utilize 

HSIP funds. These rules are contained in the INDOT guidance document titled, Highway Safety Improvement 

Program Local Project Selection Guidance . The latest INDOT version of this guidance document was 

approved by INDOT’s Highway Safety Advisory Committee on December 10, 2010. In 2014 a supplement 

document titled FY 2014 Special Rules for HSIP Eligibility was published, principally to expand the choices of 

Systemic Safety improvement types available to local agencies. Both documents are on file at the FHWA 

Indiana Division Office. In addition, an expanded list of systemic safety project work types was published on 

December 12 2016. These documents are also posted on the INDOT web site at: 

http://www.in.gov/indot/2357.htm

Guidance and outreach efforts are routinely made by INDOT and the Local Technical Assistance Program 

(LTAP), in regard to selection of HSIP and HRRRP projects. INDOT’s guidance to LPAs advocates the value of 

low cost systemic safety improvements to proactively address the risk of severe crashes on their entire 

roadway system, along with the treatment of locations with high risk of frequent severe crashes involving 

fatality or incapacitating (Class A) injury. Systemic projects are gaining increasing acceptance by LPAs. 

Notably, many applications have been submitted by LPAs to assist them in funding systemic projects to 

upgrade the retro-reflectivity of local regulatory and warning signs. 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 79

In urban areas, the MPOs that serve Group 1 and 2 urban areas are tasked to perform initial screening of 

proposed safety improvements and select candidate projects subject to INDOT determination of HSIP 

eligibility. To provide a similar level of planning support to rural public agencies, INDOT has collaborated with 

the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). INDOT sponsors an ongoing program with LTAP 

called the Hazard Elimination Project for Local Roads and Streets (HELPERS). The HELPERS Program 

coordinates with rural planning organizations (RPOs) as well as rural counties, cities and towns to assist them 

in identifying, analyzing and prioritizing their safety improvement needs in regard to reducing the occurrence 

and risk of severe crashes on public roadways. 

The HELPERS Program advises LPAs regarding management of safety risks and assists rural area LPAs in 

submitting project level funding proposals to INDOT for determination of HSIP project eligibility. The INDOT 

Office of Traffic Safety makes a determination of eligibility for all applications to utilize HSIP or HRRRP 

funding.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

Other-Capital Asset Management

Other-Research Division

Other-Budget & Project Accounting Division

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) leads INDOT’s coordinated efforts to identify locations with safety 

needs, plan improvements, prioritize and program traffic safety improvement projects on the Indiana State 

system of highways. OTS works with each of INDOT’s district offices, as well as the divisions of Design, 

Planning, Traffic Engineering, LPA & Grant Administration, Capital Asset Management Office and Budget 

Divisions. 

In order to identify potential safety improvement projects, OTS gathers input from various internal and external 

groups. The principal internal partners are District Maintenance and Technical Services Divisions and Traffic 

Engineering Offices that provide key input in the conduct of road safety assessments. 

In the areas of finance, budget and project prioritization/programming, the Manager of the OTS acts as the 

chair to the INDOT Traffic Safety Asset Management Team to prioritize all proposed safety projects located on 

the INDOT system of highways. The six INDOT district traffic engineering offices act as voting members of the 

team and the INDOT Office of Capital Project Funds Management provides coordination with INDOTs other 

asset teams and upper management. The Traffic Safety Asset Management Team acts to deliberate the 

relative need and priority of proposed traffic safety projects on INDOT managed roadways. The overall 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 79

budgeting of obligation authority for safety projects on both the state and local road systems is coordinated 

with the Division of Budget and Project Accounting.

For approved safety projects on the state highway system, the relevant INDOT district office is responsible for 

project programming and entry of the project into the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and any 

relevant local Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). They also manage design and construction projects in 

coordination with INDOT Design and Construction Divisions, via a project manager assigned to the project to 

coordinate all project development tasks.

Regarding internal coordination of local safety projects, the OTS performs review of all proposed projects for 

compliance with eligibility requirements as defined in Indiana’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Eligible projects 

are recommended to the INDOT Division of LPA & Grant Administration for funding approval and inclusion in 

the STIP and relevant TIP document. The LPA & Grants Division also develops an interagency agreement with 

the LPA to guide project development. The relevant INDOT district then assigns a project manager to 

coordinate development of the construction project. 

In addition, OTS consults with Design and Maintenance Divisions regarding new safety improvement design 

practices and the Office of Traffic Administration, regarding new Standards and Specifications. OTS also 

coordinates with the Research Division regarding the approval of safety related research efforts under the Joint 

Transportation Research Project (JTRP) and to plan implementation of successful research products.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program

Academia/University

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) coordinates the SHSP with numerous state and local agencies. Two 

primary SHSP partners are the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute which houses the Indiana SHSO and the 

Indiana State Police which manages the state’s crash database as well as FARS office. 

Regarding planning of local safety programs and performance target setting INDOT OTS primarily coordinates 

with MPOs and the LTAP Hazard Elimination Project for Local Roads and Streets (HELPERS). The HELPERS 

Program in turn coordinates with rural planning organizations (RPOs) and rural local agencies to help guide 

them toward developing HSIP eligible safety projects.

OTS also partners with the Indiana Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP) in the development of 

safety planning analysis tools for INDOT and its local partners.

Describe coordination with external partners.

INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) coordinates implementation of the Indiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) with state and local agencies as well as the FHWA Division Office. Two principal SHSP partners are 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 79

the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute which houses the Indiana State Highway Safety Office and the Indiana 

State Police which houses Indiana’s Electronic Vehicle Crash Records System and administers the state’s 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System office.

Regarding planning of local safety programs and performance target setting INDOT OTS coordinates with 

Indiana’s 14 Metropolitan Planning Organizations through the MPO Council. Coordination with rural planning 

organizations (RPOs) and rural local agencies, INDOT has established the Hazard Elimination Project for 

Local Roads and Streets (HELPERS) within the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). The 

HELPERS program helps guide small agencies in developing HSIP eligible safety projects.

OTS also partners with the Indiana Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP) in the development of 

Indiana-specific safety planning analysis tools for INDOT and its local partners.

INDOT OTS also provides information to local agency staff and consultants regarding new technical tools and 

changing methodologies through presentations made at various conferences during the year such as the 

annual Purdue University Road School and their annual Civil Engineering Professional Development Seminar 

as well as other organized events.

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

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

In response to the increased HSIP apportionments under MAP-21 and FAST Act, INDOT has engaged in new 

strategies to increase the obligation of funds to construct worthy safety improvement projects. The number of 

systemic improvement types has been expanded along with expanded selection of hot spot safety 

improvement projects. One third of the total percentage of HSIP funds is made available to local agencies, 

resulting in more opportunity to combat severe crash risk in both urban and rural areas. 

Regarding the process used by INDOT to conduct HSIP eligibility review for proposed local safety projects; 

urban LPAs must first submit to their local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for preliminary project 

selection and funding prioritization. Rural group 3 and group 4 LPAs first submit their proposed projects to the 

LTAP HELPERS Program for compliance review, prior to INDOT determination of eligibility for HSIP or 

HRRRP funding.

INDOT determines eligibility in accordance with the Indiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan's delineated Safety 

Emphasis Areas and project work types defined in the HSIP Local Project Selection Guidance documents. If a 

proposed local project is found to be eligible for HSIP or HRRRP funding, the Division of LPA and Grant 

Administration provides oversight of project agreements between INDOT and the LPA to govern project 

development. The LPA and Grant Administration Division also supports the programming of safety projects by 

administering inclusion of projects on Local and State Transportation Improvement Plans and authorizing 

funding obligation fiscal year, scheduling of plan development and construction contract letting. Once a project
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 79

is programmed in Active status on the INDOT Scheduling Project Management System, the INDOT district 

office assigns a project manager to coordinate the design and environmental documentation with the project 

sponsor agency, designer, and various INDOT Divisions and offices as well as monitor progress in order to 

bring the project to a scheduled construction contract letting. All project plans, construction documents and 

estimates are reviewed by the INDOT Highway Design & Technical Support Division.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

At present INDOT does not have a combined HSIP manual, there are INDOT published documents on file with 

the FHWA Indiana Division Office that provide policies and guidance to staff and partner agencies including:

Business Rules governing the conduct of the Traffic Safety Asset Management process for state system safety 

improvement project selection and methodology for scoring and prioritization of candidate projects including 

HSIP assets. 

Guidance to local public agencies regarding safety program planning and management of local safety project 

selection, listing of approved systemic safety improvement work types and process to apply for candidate 

project HSIP eligibility determination. 

Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) document for the Indiana HSIP funded Hazard Elimination 

Program for Existing Roads and Streets (HELPERS) management guidance . 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve 

Bicycle Safety

Roadway Departure

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

HRRR

Other-Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Stripes 

Other-Traffic Signal Visibility Improvement

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 79

Various sub-program are aligned to address SHSP emphasis areas but may overlap regarding target crash 

types that are addressed. For example the Intersection safety subprogram encompasses all forms of 

intersection crash types for signalized, stop controlled and alternative design intersections.

INDOT also has separate program requirements for the selection and prioritization of safety projects on the 

state highway system and for local agency sponsored projects on local system roads.

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/29/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Roadway and/or shoulder 

Width potental for Road Diet 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 79

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/29/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Roadway and/or shoulder 

Width potental for Road Diet 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 79

How are projects under this program 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

Ranking based on B/C : 50 

Available funding : 50 

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

Yes

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

Yes
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 79

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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 : 40 

Available funding : 60 

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Other-roadway conditions and sight 

distance 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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?
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 79

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness : 50

Other-Weighted factors addressing safety need, intersection geometry and cost effectivness : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-Designated split of HSIP Apportionment 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Other-Competes with other local projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Geometric Features, marking 

and signs 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 79

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

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

No

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

State Roads are not addressed in this SubProgram 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness : 50 

Other-Weighted scoring based on safety need and cost effectivness : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 79

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Median width 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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?

No

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

No

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

State Roads are not addressed in this SubProgram 

How are projects under this program 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness : 50

Other-Weighted ranking factors including safety need, roadway geometry and cost effectivness : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 79

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Median width 

Roadside features 

Other-Geometrics features and land 

use 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

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

Yes

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

State Roads are not addressed in this SubProgram 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness : 50
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 79

Other-Weighted factors using safety need and cost effectivness : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

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

Yes

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

State Roads are not addressed in this SubProgram 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 79

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

Cost Effectiveness : 50

Other-Weighted factors based on safety need and cost effectivness : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-Targeted to improve local road safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Geometric Features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Other-Retroreflectivity of Existing Signs

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

Yes

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

No
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 79

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

State INDOT network highways are addressed under the INDOT maintenance program and are not under the 

safety program

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness : 100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Other-Centerline and Edgeline 

Rumble Stripes 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Median width Other-Paved Shoulder Width 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Excess proportions of specific crash types 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 79

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

State INDOT network highways are addressed under the INDOT maintenance program and are not under the 

safety program

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness : 50

Other-Weighted factors using safety need and cost effectivness : 50 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Other-Traffic Signal Visibility 

Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 79

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Other-Signalized Intersections 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

State INDOT network highways are addressed under the INDOT maintenance program and are not under the 

safety program

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

Cost Effectiveness : 50

Other-Weighted factors using safety need and cost effectivness : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 47.8 

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 79

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

Stakeholder input 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

At this time INDOT does not consider connected vehicle and ITS technologies in evaluation of potential HSIP 

project selection and eligibility. INDOT is presently partnering with Purdue University and the Joint 

Transportation Research Project to evaluate connected vehicle-related communications and autonomous 

technologies and will conduct research studies of their potential effectiveness, and interactions with 

infrastructure, however the project utilizes funding other than the HSIP. INDOT considers various ITS 

technologies as a means to achieve higher mobility and safety performance, though funding for installations is 

not currently made through the HSIP.

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

INDOT has developed data driven analysis tools similar/equivalent to HSM that support HSIP efforts. The CMF 

Clearinghouse is used for all CMFs not currently calibrated for Indiana roadways.

INDOT uses IHSDM for safety analysis of selected major projects and for analysis of design exceptions when 

appropriate.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 79

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate.

INDOT seeks to achieve a balance between obligations of HSIP funds towards implementation of systemic 

improvements and supporting safety improvements at individual locations with high incidence or risk of severe 

crash outcomes. Project identification methods include conducting annual system wide analysis to identify both 

individual locations with high potential for severe crashes or need for deployment of a systemic improvement. 

Locations of concern may also be identified, analyzed and programmed for safety improvement by other 

means such as public complaints filtered through one of the INDOT’s Customer Service system.

Candidate locations on roads under INDOT jurisdiction are subject to an initial engineering review process 

analogous to a road safety assessment (RSA) in order to identify safety needs and appropriate cost effective 

countermeasures. The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) conducts these reviews with support of the INDOT 

district offices.

The Asset Management process that is used to program traffic safety projects on INDOT system roads 

requires selection and prioritization of a fiscally constrained program of projects for each state fiscal year. The 

Traffic Safety Asset Management (TSAM) Team chaired by the OTS manager and consisting of 

representatives of OTS and the six INDOT District Traffic Engineers meet and deliberate candidate projects 

including both spot and systemic safety improvements to produce cost constrained lists of safety improvement 

projects that are programmed for construction in each future fiscal year over a 5 year window.

A uniform scoring/prioritization procedure is utilized to provide proposed projects with weighted scores that 

consider history of crashes and their severity, traffic volume, road inventory data as well as consideration of 

cost effectiveness of the proposed solution. Since no uniform set of criteria can fully assess the relative 

intensity of safety needs in every case, the candidate project prioritization process also considers un-scored 

factors that may influence future crash risk by way of safety asset committee deliberation.

The TSAM team reviews and deliberates the relative merits of each proposed project and assigns a priority 

grade for a targeted fiscal year of construction. A resulting suite of proposed projects is then forwarded to an 

executive finance team called the Program Management Group that considers the requested funding level in 

context of other asset team proposals and projected revenue level for the target year. The Program 

Management Group then allocates an available obligation limitation level for the overall INDOT safety program 

for the target construction year. A Change Management process is available for project and program 

managers’ use throughout each project’s design/development phase to provide consideration of any proposed 

changes to individual project intent, budget or scheduled construction fiscal year as needed. Beginning in FFY 

2018, the OTS manager also has a voting membership on the Change Control Board that acts as the approval 

authority in regard to all submitted Change Management Requests.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 79

In regard to candidate projects on the local road system, individual LPAs may propose future projects for HSIP 

funding through two methods dependent on the type of regional planning area. Proposed projects located in 

areas within a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must first be selected and prioritized by the relevant 

MPO prior to eligibility review by INDOT. Rural LPAs are asked to first work with the Indiana LTAP HELPERS 

Program that acts to advise the LPA and regional RPO and can pre-screen applications for compliance with 

federal and state regulations. The HELPERS Program also provides out-reach with valuable advice to the 

LPAs regarding best practices for traffic safety and facilitates the conduct of appropriate RSA procedures.

The INDOT OTS makes all eligibility determinations for HSIP and HRRRP funding. The necessary information 

is provided by local public agencies via RSA reports and is used by OTS to determine eligibility for 

HSIP/HRRRP funding. A typical application for spot improvement proposals consists of a Road Safety 

Assessment (RSA) report, cost effectiveness analysis and a commitment to the project submitted by the 

relevant local officials. An exception to the full application package is the submission of eligibility information for 

a predetermined list of systemic safety project types that may be submitted via an INDOT developed form.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 79

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $46,173,539 $20,361,380 44.1%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $832,188 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $19,290,217 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $474,430 0%

State and Local Funds $2,769,178 $14,964,397 540.39%

Totals $48,942,717 $55,922,612 114.26%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Obligated program totals includes planned transfers from Advance Construction to the HSIP, HRRRP and 164-

HE programs before October 1, 2018. Amounts listed in the question 23 table reflect obligated funds totals at 

the time of reporting August 31, 2018. Changes in the obligation totals may have occurred subsequent to that 

date.

Due to the Section 164 Penalty Fund requirement in FFY 2018 the current year obligation of HSIP eligible 

funds (absent the HRRRP Special Rule) is $20,361,380 or 44.1% of the programmed HSIP.

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

34% 

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

101% 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 79

INDOT Allocated 34% of the FFY 2018 annual apportionment to fund local agency sponsored HSIP eligible 

projects. The allocation to local agencies for FFY 2018 is $18,326,601

In FFY 2018 the projected total obligation of funds to construct local safety projects is expected to be 100.8% 

of total apportionment or $18,481,762

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

$251,000 

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

$251,000 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

HSIP is used to fund the operations of the Hazard Elimination Program for Exiting Roads and Streets 

(HELPERS) Program managed by the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program.

In addition, MPOs may utilize up to 15% of allocated HSIP funds for safety program planning activities.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$26,950,844 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Due to the Section 164 Penalty Fund requirement in FFY 2018 a transfer of funds from HSIP took place to 

balance INDOT’s asset management policy.

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

MAP-21 and the FAST Act make it clear that cost effectiveness and severe crash risk are to be considered in 

project selection decisions; however, guidance is currently unclear as to how the risk of future crashes for 

several systemic improvement types can be accommodated under current cost effectiveness methodologies. 

The determination of project eligibility to utilize HSIP funds in a cost effective manner is typically based on past 

history of crashes. However, under changing traffic demand and operational conditions crash history is not 

always the most suitable indicator of future crash risk. In addition, the predictive functions contained in the 

Highway Safety Manual while helpful in this regard, are still limited in the range of specific situations that may 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 79

be predicted. As a result proposed safety improvement projects that are seemingly promising candidates for 

HSIP funding are sometimes rejected due to an inability to meet cost effectiveness criteria. The lack of 

guidance regarding the application of risk factors relative to cost effectiveness has also had the effect of stifling 

innovation in regard to trying new types of crash countermeasures. Improved guidance by FHWA in regard to 

assessment of future traffic safety risk would be a welcome feature in assessing changing conditions such as 

land use and travel demand.

Under the current Indiana Crash Database the definition of an “incapacitating injury” as any injury that requires 

immediate transport from the scene for medical treatment reduce time on the scene for reporting officers, and 

allowed their focus to be on protecting and clearing the crash scene. It also provided a non-subjective “yes or 

no” condition to indicate the seriousness of injury rather than a subjective evaluation of injury. However, this 

definition is no longer compliant with the MMUCC 4 th Edition. 

The new MMUCC guidelines will require the term “suspected serious injury” equivalent to the “A” injury 

classification under the KABCO scale. The revised classification rule starting April 15, 2019 will be too short a 

time for the TRCC to adjust the data elements that are available in the state’s electronic vehicle crash data 

base. The new guidelines will also require officers to determine a level of trauma to the victim from a list of 

possible injuries. Not only is this a difficult task for most officers who are not medically trained but injury 

assessment is not an officers primary duty at a crash scene. Good communication between emergency 

medical technicians and reporting officers will be more time consuming and is inherently inconsistent from one 

officer to the next, and even from one injury to the next by the same officer.

In 2016, the Indiana State Police (ISP) and members of the TRCC began working on a new version of the 

Electronic Indiana Crash Reporting Tool for Officers. The Indiana TRCC Working Group will continue to meet 

and discuss methods of complying with the MMUCC guidelines while maintaining the overall goal of making 

the officers’ job at a crash scene as rapid, accurate and consistent as possible. In the meantime, INDOT has 

proposed a method to estimate annual suspected serious injury counts from the crash database. 

The rural fatal crash rate rule governing the High Risk Rural Roads Program should end. The HRRR Program 

has proven ineffective as a means of addressing rural road safety primarily due to constraint on functional 

class. Rural LPAs are far more likely to apply for HSIP funds to make safety improvements on rural local roads 

with higher average daily traffic that may be classified as arterial. The requirement that ties safety improvement 

funds to roadway functional class is not an element that rural LPAs typically consider when developing or 

prioritizing proposed safety improvements; therefore projects submitted for eligibility by LPAs often do not 

qualify for HRRRP eligibility due to significant involvement of arterial roads in the project applications. 

Moreover, multiyear analysis of severe crash trends on rural roads has not indicated a difference that can be 

directly attributed to functional class. In addition, many local roads lack adequate volume or inventory data, 

making an accurate comparison of crash rate averages a difficult task. The current best practice of comparing 

substantive to nominal crash risk has proven to be a better predictor of crash risk. Improved response to risk 

factors for severe crashes on rural local roads could be achieved by encouraging states to dedicate a 

percentage of their HSIP apportionments to the construction of safety improvements on rural medium to low 

volume roads found to have a higher than nominal severe crash frequency or rate regardless of their functional 

class. 

If the HRRR Program special rule is to continue, at a minimum state DOT’s should be permitted to conduct the 

calculation of all current special rule requirements under processes approved by FHWA. State DOTs are more 

familiar with current status of roadway conditions, function and changing urban/rural boundaries. The current 

calculation conducted by NHTSA is dependent on data from the FARS system that has an inherent time lag 

while Fast FARS lacks adequate accuracy for timely calculations. Also, NHTSAs functional class definitions do 

not match FHWA potentially adding misperception of actual conditions. 

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 79

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

In March of 2016 the Governor of Indiana signed a revised Strategic Highway Safety Plan for Indiana. This 

new SHSP assists efforts to implement the HSIP over the next 5 years. During the development of the revised 

SHSP, extensive discussions were held with partnering federal and state agencies. In the revised SHSP 

reliance on language calling for specific countermeasures is generally avoided, in favor of broad national 

“Toward Zero Deaths” strategies. Indiana feels that making the SHSP as flexible as possible will provide an 

advantage in terms of addressing emerging issues such as technologies, countermeasures and methodologies 

in the coming years.

INDOT administers an Asset Management program to budget and program all of INDOT’s infrastructure capital 

investments. The Asset Management system provides a means to budget for needed safety improvement 

actions and to prioritize potential safety improvement projects and actions that improves INDOTs ability to 

select and produce high value safety projects. Candidate safety projects undergo weighted scoring that 

emphasizes the need to address high severity crash locations with the construction of cost effective crash 

countermeasures. Spot improvement projects are prioritized and programmed from 18 months prior to 

construction year for certain systemic improvements to 5 years in the future for projects requiring more 

involved development process.

Annual reservations of a budget allocation for systemic safety improvements to be constructed in the same 

future years are prioritized. The safety needs analysis conducted by the Traffic Safety Asset Management 

Team for both spot and systemic safety project proposals serves to validate increased awareness of and 

priority for increased investment in traffic safety .

The primary program goal for the Traffic Safety Asset Class is the reduction in the frequency of crashes with 

fatal and/or suspected serious injury outcomes either by reducing the occurrence of these crashes or their 

relative severity. Current available analysis tools are designed to consider all incapacitating injury crashes to 

be serious so fatal and suspected serious injury crashes are primarily targeted as well as site specific data for 

countermeasure decision making. For most road safety assessment studies conducted at specific locations 

(sites) property damage data is also used to reveal a complete picture of prevailing crash patterns. For sites on 

the INDOT system and in most local urban areas, traffic volume data is available to establish nominal and 

substantive crash rates that aid in prioritizing project proposals. 

Most rural local roads lack accurate recent volume data so a crash loss index was developed under a joint 

transportation research project with Purdue University. Socioeconomic data and road characteristics are used 

to develop a local expected road crash loss and crash loss density that is compared to existing crash history to 

prioritize relative safety need at a site or road segment. Prior to project programming a site investigation is 

performed for all crash studies using Road Safety Assessment (RSA) principles to determine if or how the 

road’s design and maintenance characteristics influence crashes. The RSA also acts as an effective means to 

guide the selection of appropriate and effective crash countermeasures.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 79

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

1500668 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1.71 Miles $348187.83 $349629.25 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

16,911 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Construct ADA 

Ramps

1702222 Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.731 Miles $248956.13 $249986.76 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface

1702119 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

15 Ramps $355339.27 $364110.3 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

20,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Construct ADA 

Ramps

1701578 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

76 Ramps $49493.95 $49698.84 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major 

Collector

10,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Construct ADA 

Ramps

1701577 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

0.7 Miles $579601.2 $580453.07 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major 

Collector

10,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Construct ADA 

Ramps

1700406 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

3 Miles $996373.94 $1047716.45 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

103,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Enhance 

pavement 

markings and 

highway signage

1601926 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Intersections $113846.9 $126496.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

9,020 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install HAWK 

Crossing Signal

1601871 Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

1 Intersections $150385.08 $150485.08 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

33,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1601837 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

60 Ramps $547052.84 $690709.8 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,550 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Construct ADA 

Ramps

1601832 Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

6 Intersections $244604.41 $272782.68 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

18,500 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1601813 Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

1 Intersections $147395.52 $148895.52 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

16,600 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1601381 Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

1 Intersections $102923.51 $102923.51 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

9,750 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install new traffic 

signal

1601161 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

132 Signs $39920.28 $44355.87 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

7,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Sign Visibility 

Improvement 

1600481 Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

1 Intersections $70256.54 $70256.54 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

22,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install new traffic 

signal

1592654 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

5 Intersections $601808.98 $601808.98 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

35,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 79 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

1592620 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $1098620.57 $1256252.86 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

6,700 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvement 

Project

1500323 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

5 Intersections $5567786.91 $618652.12 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

13,000 20 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Construct Curb 

Bumpouts for 

traffic calming 

and pedestrian 

safety

1500429 Lighting Intersection lighting 63 Roadway 

Luminaires

$853804.8 $948672 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

5,000 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Install roadway 

lighting

1298316 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify left-turn 

lane offset

1 Intersections $1121966.42 $1286210.82 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,400 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvement 

Project

1298309 Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.79 Miles $1626468.38 $2047552.59 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

31,200 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Added travel 

lanes along a 

road segment

1006624 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

acceleration/deceleration lane

1 Intersections $1210505.92 $1468122.51 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,250 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Extend Auxilary 

Turn Lanes

1296321 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

16 Intersections $2300562.07 $2364062.07 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

20,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1296847 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $985889.43 $1423733.99 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

11,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install 

Roundabout

1296911 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $1988530.78 $2697840.53 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

41,000 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Add auxilary turn 

lanes

1297947 Roadside Barrier - cable 62.86 Miles $2251705.71 $2387005.71 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

28,500 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install cable rail

1400581 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $2013184.51 $2267520.29 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,000 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Install 

Roundabout

1401164 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $944551.22 $1049501.36 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

15,900 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Add auxilary turn 

lanes

1401735 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $196623.76 $222684.17 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

21,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Signal vis project 

with curb ramp 

improvements

1500046 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $491321 $546012.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

18,800 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvement 

Project with 

signal mod

1500692 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Modify frontage 

road access and 

modernize signal

$598497.31 $664997.01 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

27,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection

Improvement with 

Traffic Signal 

Modernization

1592655 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 113.53 Miles $122414.82 $122414.82 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure RPM 

Refurbishment
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 79

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

1592656 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

34 Intersections $483565.21 $483565.21 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1593090 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 41964 Numbers $294806.04 $294806.04 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure RPM 

Refurbishment

1593094 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

6 Intersections $690184.13 $691184.13 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

13,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1593103 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 50352 Numbers $430718.46 $430718.46 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure RPM 

Refurbishment

1593104 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

7 Intersections $1066947.68 $1069847.68 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1600022 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $1157737.87 $1159292.87 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1600023 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 132.2 Miles $236673.39 $236673.39 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure RPM 

Refurbishment

1600024 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

1146 Signs $322872.69 $322872.69 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Curve warning 

sign upgrades

1600080 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

5 Intersections $833695.98 $833695.98 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1600112 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

6 Intersections $868254.51 $869754.51 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1600114 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1350 Signs $637464.59 $637464.59 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Regulatory sign 

upgrade

1600651 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian warning signs - 

add/modify flashers

13 Intersections $415389.31 $461543.68 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians School Crossing 

Zone warning 

systems

1600677 Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 53 Centerline and 

edgeline rumble 

stripes installation

$750226.73 $750226.73 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

8,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installation of 

Centerline and 

Edgeline Rumble 

Stripes

1600836 Roadside Barrier - cable 5.03 Miles $708191.33 $743691.33 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

34,100 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install cable rail

1601164 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

3 Locations $272260.46 $302511.62 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Install HAWK 

Crossing Signal

1601183 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

43 Ramps $260642.72 $315563.63 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Install 43 ADA 

Curb Ramps
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 79

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

1601205 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

20 Ramps $206091.92 $270199.64 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Install 20 ADA 

Curb Ramps

1601444 Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.07 Miles $270935.42 $272968.76 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

26,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install left turn 

lane

1601788 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

41 Intersections $828841.46 $842547.46 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

15,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1601882 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Change from a 2 

way stop control 

to a signal control

$165808.59 $165808.59 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,000 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections New signal 

installation

1601884 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Change from a 2 

way stop control 

to a signal control

$313682.56 $313682.56 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

12,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections New signal 

installation

1601933 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

7 Intersections $195391.21 $195391.21 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

17,400 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility 

Improvement

1700390 Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

8 Locations $459634.15 $460537.16 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install High 

Friction Surface 

Material

1700712 Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 6.133 Centerline and 

edgeline rumble 

stripes installation

$186671.87 $186671.87 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installation of 

Centerline and 

Edgeline Rumble 

Stripes

1702292 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Change from a 2 

way stop control 

to a signal control

$135402.26 $151902.26 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

16,500 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections New signal 

installation

1297948 Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 13.35 Curve Sign and 

Marking Visibility 

Improvements

$173137.3 $173137.3 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

7,900 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Curve warning 

sign and marking 

upgrades

1601162 Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings - add stop 

line

73 Intersections $23326.93 $25918.82 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major 

Collector

7,800 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Install Stop Lines, 

Yield Lines and 

Crosswalk Lines

1700618 Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

9 Curves $562124.02 $624582.24 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install High 

Friction Surface 

Material

1382818 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1311614.12 $1483415.95 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

3,100 50 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install 

Roundabout

1383683 Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.526 Miles $2789100 $3125400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

18,700 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reconstruct 

Greene Street

1400812 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

795 Signs $266363.02 $295958.91 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility 

Improvement 

1400816 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

emergency vehicle preemption

13 Intersections $177030 $293091.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

13,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Install Emergency 

Vehicle 

Preemption
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 79

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

1401706 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $2730185.78 $3033539.75 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

20,500 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Add auxilary turn 

lanes

1500421 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 35 Ramps $452494.12 $613271.24 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

3,500 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Install 35 ADA 

Curb Ramps with 

new sidewalk

1600426 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 15 Intersections $718086 $850426.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

15,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Enhance existing 

pedestrian 

crosswalks

1601863 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.694 Miles $940874.22 $1064269.66 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

20,500 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install sidewalk

1700387 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

12 Intersections $642126.05 $646661.98 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal Visibility

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

HSIP is used to fund the operations of the Hazard Elimination Program for Exiting Roads and Streets (HELPERS) Program managed by the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program.

Projects with the Improvement Category of Non-infrastructure consist of improvements to traffic safety data systems or traffic safety planning and education efforts undertaken by metropolitan planning organizations as part of their Unified 

Planning Work Programs
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 79

Safety Performance

General Highway 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 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 693 754 751 781 784 745 817 821 915

Serious Injuries 3,360 3,436 3,265 3,402 3,270 3,338 3,434 3,505 3,389

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.904 0.995 0.982 0.990 1.001 1.030 1.037 1.031 1.101

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.385 4.535 4.269 4.311 4.176 4.214 4.357 4.394 4.079

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

60 78 85 84 94 95 112 115 106

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

276 337 322 321 395 285 279 285 297
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 79

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

3100

3150

3200

3250

3300

3350

3400

3450

3500

3550

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 79

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 79

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

In June 2014, INDOT submitted comments on the proposed National Highway Traffic Safety Performance 

Measures Rulemaking (NPRM) including a comment regarding the expected transition to the MMUCC 4th 

Edition as it relates to definition of Suspected Serious Injury. INDOT’s comments included the objection that an 

18-month implementation period is unreasonably short of the time necessary to engage all partners to enable 

changes in the Indiana crash database to comply with the new definition of Suspected Serious Injury. Prior to 

this proposed rulemaking, incapacitating injury (victim transported from the scene) was deemed an acceptable 

measure in prior editions of the MMUCC.

Federal regulations promulgated in 2016 by Federal Highway Administration to support the administration of 

transportation funding included a requirement that states must report Suspected Serious Injuries using the 

criteria established in the MMUCC 4th Edition. This linkage of a federal regulation to an advisory document’s 

recommended definition put Indiana’s current designation of incapacitating injury out of compliance. The new 

regulation for setting and reporting traffic safety performance measures compels Indiana to determine a 

method to approximate counting of Suspected Serious Injuries so that current Indiana crash records can be 

used to calculate historic and projected traffic safety performance counts in accord with “A” injuries on the 

KABCO scale.

In establishing a proxy for missing data regarding Suspected Serious Injuries, Indiana analyzed statewide 

incapacitating injury counts across the 10 years prior to the Indiana TRCC reclassification that began in 

November 2014. Crash data records for the years 2004 to 2013 were analyzed to determine a percentage of 

the total number of non-fatal incapacitating injuries recorded each of these years. The incapacitating injury 

counts from these years are assumed to equate to the current definition of suspected serious injuries and were 

evaluated to establish the average percentage of non-fatal suspected serious injuries that contribute to total 

injury counts. The annual average percent contribution of suspected serious injuries prior to the 2014 Indiana 

TRCC definition change was found to be 7.1%. Weighting this value to account for an increases in suspected 

serious injury counts in the most recent three years of the 10 year period (2011, 2012 and 2013), the resulting 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 79

value is adjusted to 7.2% of all injuries. Indiana intends to use the 7.2% estimate of non-fatal injuries for each 

year to represent the number of statewide “Suspected Serious Injuries” until such time as a specific count of 

MMUCC 4th Edition compliant data can be incorporated into the Indiana Crash Database.

Note that the 7.2% share of injuries is considered to be valid only when examining statewide crashes on all 

roads in Indiana. A separate percentage value of Suspected Serious Injuries for any subset of the data 

requires its own historic analysis using the same methodology to establish an estimated percentage 

contribution in that subset.

INDOT asks that FHWA accept Indiana’s described reporting methodology as part of any review of Indiana 

Crash data and Performance Target Setting methodology.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Data from the Fatal Accident Reporting System was utilized according to the most complete dataset for the 

given year as follows:

FARS Final Report File for the preceding years through 2015, 

FARS Annual Report File for the year 2016

Indiana State Police FARS Report for the year 2017

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

55 89 0.65 1.06

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

69 169 1.53 3.72

Rural Minor Arterial 79 200 2.16 5.44

Rural Minor Collector 25 119 1.19 5.73

Rural Major Collector 105 383 1.82 6.62

Rural Local Road or Street 125 246 2.45 4.84

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

39 201 0.34 1.77
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 79

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

14 44 0.96 3.13

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

78 804 0.72 7.4

Urban Minor Arterial 60 632 0.67 7.03

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 26 267 0.53 5.47

Urban Local Road or Street 110 204 0.81 1.5
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 79

Year 2017

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 431.82 1,422.33 1.04 3.43

County Highway Agency 181.42 803.85 1 4.45

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

173.91 1,093 0.82 5.17

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 79

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 79

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 79

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 79

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 79

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest,

or Reservation

Agency

Private (Other than

Railroad)

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 79

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest,

or Reservation

Agency

Private (Other than

Railroad)

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 79

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 79

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Data Tables for 5 year averages from 2013 through 2017 have been adjusted for final approved VMT data and 

changes in the classification of Suspected Serious Injuries per the methodology described under Question 30 - 

Additional Information.

Federal regulations promulgated in 2016 by Federal Highway Administration to support the administration of 

transportation funding included a requirement that states report Suspected Serious Injuries using the criteria 

established in the MMUCC 4th Edition. This linkage to a federal regulation to what had historically been an 

advisory document’s recommended definition put Indiana’s current designation of incapacitating injury out of 

compliance. The new regulation for establishing and reporting traffic safety performance measures necessitate 

that Indiana determine a method to approximate counting of Suspected Serious Injuries (per the MMUCC 4th 

Edition) so that current Indiana crash records could be used to calculate historic and projected traffic safety 

performance counts in accord with “A” injuries on the KABCO scale.

In establishing a proxy for missing data regarding Suspected Serious Injuries, Indiana analyzed statewide 

incapacitating injury counts that remained reasonably stable across the 10 years prior to the Indiana TRCC 

reclassification that began in November 2014. Crash data records for the years 2004 to 2013 were analyzed to 

determine a percentage of the total number of non-fatal incapacitating injuries recorded each of these years. 

The incapacitating injury counts from these years are assumed to equate to the current definition of suspected 

serious injuries and were evaluated to establish the average percentage of non-fatal suspected serious injuries 

that contribute to total injury counts. The annual average percent contribution of suspected serious injuries 

prior to the 2014 Indiana TRCC definition change was found to be 7.1%. Weighting this value to account for an 

increases in suspected serious injury counts in the most recent three years of the 10 year period (2011, 2012 

and 2013), the resulting value is adjusted to 7.2% of all injuries. Indiana intends to use the 7.2% estimate of 

non-fatal injuries for each year to represent the number of statewide “Suspected Serious Injuries” until such 

time as a specific count of MMUCC 4th Edition compliant data can be incorporated into the Indiana Crash 

Database.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 79

Note that the 7.2% share of injuries is considered to be valid only when examining statewide crashes on all 

roads in Indiana. A separate percentage value pf Suspected Serious Injuries for any subset of the data 

requires its own historic analysis using the same methodology to establish an estimated percentage 

contribution to the total of all non-fatal injuries in that subset.

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

In 2017, the early estimate of vehicle miles of travel increased by 1.20% above 2016. The number of police 

reported fatalities increased by 11.45%. Suspected serious injuries decreased by 0.08%.

INDOT along with the Indiana TRCC will continue to monitor and assess the effect of the change in the method 

of injury severity classification.

Also, in 2017 INDOT and Indiana State Police have continued an effort with the vendor that manages the 

AIRES crash data portal to improve crash data reliability for all records by inspecting data transfer and query 

processes for possible errors. As a result, a small increase in the number of crash records in each severity 

classification has occurred in each year with reported data.

Statewide 2017 crash data shows that Indiana is experiencing conditions somewhat similar to surrounding 

states in regard to changes in the 5 year rolling averages of Fatalities, Suspected Serious Injuries, Fatality 

Rate and Suspected Serious Injury Rate. In 2017, Indiana was part of a national trend of increased numbers of 

serious crash events resulting in severe and fatal injuries.

Widespread deployment of multiple countermeasures has resulted in small decreases in crashes resulting from 

vehicle departure from the travel lanes (including roadway departure, head-on and opposite direction 

sideswipe). Lane departure crash events continue to be the most numerous harmful events in 2017. The 5 

year average of fatalities resulting from single vehicle lane departures in 2017 accounted for 42.7% of all 

Indiana motor vehicle fatalities, compared to the 5 year average of 44.8% calculated for 2016. The continued 

risk of roadway departure events has resulted in the development of several systemic improvement types 

aimed at reducing the incidence and consequences of lane departure crashes.

Serious Crashes as a result of intersection crashes continues to make up the second worst type of harmful 

event. In 2017 the 5 year average of intersection fatalities contributed 33.0% of total traffic fatalities, similar to 

the 32.7% average from 2016. INDOT is advancing systemic improvements to increase the visibility of both 

signalized and un-signalized intersections along with a program to modernize traffic signal control equipment. 

INDOT is also engaged in a program to “change-out” older 5 section heads used to control 

“permitted/protected” left turn traffic signal phasing for the MUTCD approved 4-section heads using a flashing 

yellow arrow for permissive left turns. INDOT is also increasing the construction of innovative intersection types 

to reduce traffic conflicts such as Roundabouts, J Turns and other Median U-Turn designs. In 2014, INDOT 

produced a guideline document to assist traffic designers in the task of making preliminary determination of 

feasibility of various alternative intersection types on the basis of location and traffic data for site conditions.

Indiana is also concerned with the incidence of fatalities involving vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, 

bicycle and motorcycle riders, and is working with our partners on education efforts. In 2017 the 5 year rolling 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 79

average rate of pedestrian involved serious crashes made up 5.8% of the total compared to a 5.7% average in 

2016. Higher numbers of bike users and pedestrians combined with growing VMT has led to many more 

conflicts between these road users. Despite higher levels of exposure the 5 year average percentage of 

serious crashes in 2017 that involve bicyclists was 2.0% compared to the 5 year average in 2016 of 2.3%. The 

number of motorcycle and moped crashes has been on a downward trend since 2013 and was slightly lower in 

2017 compared to 2016, but it should be noted that similar to non-motorized vulnerable road users exposure to 

conflicts for motorcycle/moped riders is generally rising. 

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 889.6 

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

Data Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System 2009-2015 FARS Final File Count 

2016 FARS Annual Report File 2017 Indiana State Police FARS Report For the 

purpose of comparison to the SHSO annual report, the 5 year average performance 

target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2019 value of (951) as described in 

the following methodology. Baseline projections are calculated using fatality counts 

and applying an equation to generate predictive values for 2018-2019. This was 

accomplished by the software built into Microsoft Excel for applying a logarithmic 

trend line with a forward forecast of two years. The equation is of the form [y = 

A*ln(x) + B]. The resulting equation is then adjusted to more closely fit recent peak 

years by shifting the value of B to produce a matching value for the recorded peak. 

INDOT estimates seven fatalities annually may be influenced by every .1% change in 

annual unemployment. Recent economic forecasts indicate an additional decrease in 

annual unemployment of .2% during the 2018-2019 period can be reasonably 

anticipated in Indiana. Consequently, the fatality count projections include an 

additional seven fatalities each year in anticipation of an improving economic climate 

influencing greater risk-taking and unfortunately increased severe crash outcomes. 

Number of Serious Injuries 3501.9 

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

Data Source: Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES) 2009- 

2013 the “As reported” count of “Incapacitating Injuries” 2014-2017 an estimated 

count amounting to 7.2% of all non-fatal injuries For the purpose of comparison to the 

SHSO annual report, the 5 year average performance target listed above is based on a 

projected calendar 2019 value of (3,605) as described in the following methodology. 

Baseline projections are calculated using incapacitating injury counts (or estimations) 

and applying an equation to generate predictive values for 2014-2017. This was 

accomplished by the software built into Microsoft Excel for applying a logarithmic 

trend line with a forward forecast of four years. The equation is of the form [y = 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 79

A*ln(x) + B]. The resulting equation is then adjusted to more closely fit recent peak 

years by shifting the value of B to produce a matching value for the recorded peak. 

Fatality Rate 1.087 

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

Data Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System The NHTSA calculated and reported 

values through 2016. For the purpose of comparison to the SHSO annual report, the 5 

year average performance target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2019 

value of (1.148) as described in the following methodology. Estimated/Predicted 

values for 2017-2019: The predicted annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) growth 

rate for each of the next five years is estimated to be 1.20% from the last FHWA 

approved VMT in 2015. INDOT’s Technical Planning Support and Programming 

Division arrived at this figure by averaging the last 5 years of Annual Growth Rates 

for each of five factor groups and then averaging them. The predicted annual estimates 

for fatalities are then evaluated with the projected VMTs for their respective future 

years to produce predicted fatality rates per 100-million VMT. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.234 

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

Data Source: Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES) The 

INDOT calculated and reported values through 2013. Using estimated incapacitating 

injuries and the FHWA VMT values for 2014-2017. The 5 year average performance 

target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2019 value of (4.236) as described 

in the following methodology. Estimated/Predicted values for 2017-2019: The 

predicted annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) growth rate for each of the next five 

years is estimated to be 1.20% from the last FHWA approved VMT in 2015. INDOT’s 

Technical Planning Support and Programming Division arrived at this figure by 

averaging the last 5 years of Annual Growth Rates for each of five factor groups and 

then averaging them. The predicted annual estimates for incapacitating injuries for are 

then evaluated with the projected VMTs for their respective future years to produce 

predicted incapacitating injury rates per 100-million VMT. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 393.6 

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

Data Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (Non-motorist persons) 2009-2014 

FARS Final File Count 2016 FARS Annual Report File 2017 Indiana State Police 

FARS Report Data Source: Automated Reporting Information Exchange System 

(ARIES) (Non-motorist persons)* 2009-2013 the “As reported” count of 

“Incapacitating Injuries” 2014-2017 an estimated count amounting to 13% of all nonfatal injuries “The 5 year average performance target listed above is based on a 

projected calendar 2019 value of (417) as described in the following methodology.” 

Baseline projections of Non-Motorist Fatalities are calculated using FARS Fatality 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 79

counts and applying an equation to generate predictive values for 2017-2019. This was 

accomplished by the software built into Microsoft Excel for applying a logarithmic 

trend line with a forward forecast of two years. The equation is of the form [y = 

A*ln(x) + B]. The resulting equation is then adjusted to more closely fit recent peak 

years by shifting the value of B to produce a matching value for the recorded peak. 

Non-Motorist incapacitating injuries are projected logarithmically as above for 2018-

2019 with non-motorist incapacitating injuries projected as 13% of projected all nonmotorist non-fatal injuries. *In addition to persons classified as pedestrians or pedalcyclists, persons classified as animal drawn vehicle operators are included in the 

calculation. This is due to the significant number of crashes involving these vehicles 

across Indiana. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

targets. 

Following the promulgation of the new rule, on (DATE) INDOT Office of Traffic Safety solicited a partnership 

group of Contributing/Consulting/Advisory Agencies and Organizations to coordinate setting the 5 safety 

performance targets. The Traffic Safety Performance Target Setting Team held seven meetings from July of 

2016 through June of 2017 in-order to establish a procedure for calculation of the required annual safety 

performance targets. The traffic safety Performance Target Setting Team deliberated and ultimately agree 

upon both the methodology that was used to establish the traffic safety performance targets and the calendar 

2018 targets.

Using the same procedures INDOT has calculated safety performance targets for calendar 2019. A final 

agreement on each target that was set for calendar year 2019 was reached between INDOT and the other 

members of the Traffic Safety Performance Target Setting Team including Indiana’s State Highway Safety 

Office (housed in the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute) on June 27, 2018.

The Indiana Traffic Safety Performance Target Setting Team consists of the following organizations:

Indiana Department of Transportation, Office of Traffic Safety

Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, Traffic Safety and Research Divisions (SHSO)

Indiana Metropolitan Planning Organization Council – Executive Director Task group

Federal Highway Administration, Indiana Division

Local Technical Assistance Program – HELPERS Program

The task group completed their deliberations in time to allow the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (SHSO) to 

report the three overlapping performance targets in their 2018 Highway safety Plan Report to NHTSA before 

the July 1, 2018 deadline.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 79

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Indiana does not choose to report on additional optional targets at this time.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

In 2012 FHWA made a calculation based on NHTSA's determination of rural versus urban fatalities that 

resulted in allocation of the HRRR Special Rule requirement to Indiana for the federal fiscal years 2013 

through 2017. In FFY 2018 INDOT does not fall under the HRRR Special Rule.

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

112 100 106 103 99 112 115

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

244 267 257 252 255 275 308
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 79

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 79

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced)

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Per commitment under Indiana’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan to move Towards Zero Deaths, INDOT’s goal 

and primary measure of effectiveness is the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roadways in 

the state.

In addition, INDOT seeks through its Traffic Safety Capital Program to achieve a cost effective investment of 

federal, state and local dollars per fatal and serious injury crash reduced.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

Per commitment under Indiana’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan to move Towards Zero Deaths, INDOT’s goal 

and primary measure of effectiveness is the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roadways in 

the state. In this regard, INDOT monitors the number and rate of fatal and serious injury crash events and 

casualties in determining progress Toward Zero Deaths. 

INDOT’s additional goal during fiscal year 2018 was to maintain integrity of a planned $46 million investment in 

the 2018 traffic safety capital program, toward achieving an expected reduction of at least 5,914 severe 

crashes on INDOT jurisdictional roads through the projects’ design lives. Essentially the goal over time to be 

maintained is the overall cost-effectiveness (C-E) of the program; that is, the relationship of dollars invested to 

crashes reduced, or $24,400 per severe crash as the baseline ratio at the start of the fiscal year.

This is a summary of results relative to the federal fiscal year 2018 goal. The safety program affected a slightly 

positive change in C-E, down to about $24,000 from $24,200 the prior year. Overall, the fiscal year 2018 

performance expectation was achieved. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Other-Total Federal Safety Obligations

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 61 of 79

At the start of calendar 2018 INDOT approved High Friction Surface as a new systemic safety project work 

type in production, bringing a total number of 25 work types available for state or local project sponsors.

In FFY 2018 INDOT has over $54.4 million in federal aid highway safety funds including HSIP and Section 

164-HE funds programmed for obligation prior to the end of the federal fiscal year.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure Combined Head-on, 

Run-off-road and 

Opposite Direction 

Sidswipe

387.8 1,069.04 0.49 1.35

Intersections Intersections 206.6 1,179.48 0.26 1.49

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 86 209.75 0.11 0.27

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 12 68.01 0.02 0.09

Motorcyclists Motorcycle and 

Moped

118 482.39 0.15 0.61

Work Zones Work Zones 16.6 65.51 0.02 0.08

Data All 820.8 3,423.81 1.04 4.32

Large Trucks Truck-related 18.4 53.13 0.02 0.07
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 62 of 79

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 63 of 79

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

In 2018 INDOT continued an ongoing effort with the vendor that manages the AIRES crash data portal to 

improve crash data reliability for all records by inspecting data transfer and query processes for possible 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 64 of 79

errors. As a result, a small increase in the number of crash records in each severity classification has occurred 

in each year with reported data.

Federal regulations promulgated in 2016 by Federal Highway Administration to support the administration of 

transportation funding included a requirement that states report Suspected Serious Injuries using the criteria 

established in the MMUCC 4th Edition. This linkage to a federal regulation to what had historically been an 

advisory document’s recommended definition put Indiana’s current designation of incapacitating injury out of 

compliance. The new regulations for establishing and reporting traffic safety performance measures 

necessitate that Indiana determine a method to approximate counting of Suspected Serious Injuries (per the 

MMUCC 4th Edition) so that current Indiana crash records could be used to calculate historic and projected 

traffic safety performance counts in accord with “A” injuries on the KABCO scale.

In establishing a proxy for missing data regarding Suspected Serious Injuries, Indiana analyzed statewide 

incapacitating injury counts that remained reasonably stable across the 10 years prior to the Indiana TRCC 

reclassification that began in November 2014. Crash data records for the years 2004 to 2013 were analyzed to 

determine a percentage of the total number of non-fatal incapacitating injuries recorded each of these years. 

The incapacitating injury counts from these years are assumed to equate to the current definition of suspected 

serious injuries and were evaluated to establish the average percentage of non-fatal suspected serious injuries 

that contribute to total injury counts. The annual average percent contribution of suspected serious injuries 

prior to the 2014 Indiana TRCC definition change was found to be 7.1%. Weighting this value to account for an 

increases in suspected serious injury counts in the most recent three years of the 10 year period (2011, 2012 

and 2013), the resulting value is adjusted to 7.2% of all injuries. Indiana intends to use the 7.2% estimate of 

non-fatal injuries for each year to represent the number of statewide “Suspected Serious Injuries” until such 

time as a specific count of MMUCC 4th Edition compliant data can be incorporated into the Indiana Crash 

Database.

Note that the 7.2% share of injuries is considered to be valid only when examining statewide crashes on all 

roads in Indiana. A separate percentage value pf Suspected Serious Injuries for any subset of the data 

requires its own historic analysis using the same methodology to establish an estimated percentage 

contribution to the total of all non-fatal injuries in that subset. For example, the case of statewide Non-Motorist 

Suspected Serious Injuries as a percentage of All Non-Motorist Non-Fatal Injuries, for the years 2004 through 

2013 the resulting average is 13.0%. In comparison, the average percentage of Non-Motorist Fatalities of All 

Fatalities for the analysis years 2004 through 2015 is 10.5%.

INDOT asks that FHWA accept Indiana’s described reporting methodology as part of any review of Indiana 

Crash data and Performance Target Setting methodology.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 65 of 79

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1173395 Rural Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

162.00 167.00 10.00 7.00 32.00 28.00 204.00 202.00 1.04

0014000 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

59.00 196.00 2.00 21.00 1.00 16.00 10.00 98.00 207.00 4.47

0100753 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

7.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 11.00 5.00 2.14

0100785 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled134.00 130.00 3.00 2.00 19.00 7.00 156.00 139.00 1.37

0201320 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 8.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 9.00 10.00 1.00

0201391 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

170.00 184.00 3.00 1.00 25.00 5.00 32.00 230.00 190.00 1.22

0301112 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway - other 93.00 72.00 8.00 2.00 22.00 15.00 123.00 89.00 0.79

0401082 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

12.00 16.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 18.00 19.00 0.60

0810294 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

133.00 135.00 5.00 2.00 40.00 29.00 178.00 166.00 1.10

0810298 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

8.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.06

0810299 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 2.00 2.00

0900103 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 706.00 792.00 4.00 51.00 15.00 170.00 120.00 931.00 927.00 1.98

0900104 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 226.00 393.00 1.00 15.00 3.00 47.00 18.00 289.00 414.00 2.25

0900105 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 329.00 386.00 4.00 27.00 7.00 72.00 104.00 432.00 497.00 1.90
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 66 of 79

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0900106 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 48.00 51.00 2.00 2.00 14.00 20.00 66.00 71.00 1.52

0900107 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 100.00 81.00 2.00 12.00 9.00 114.00 90.00 1.54

0900108 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 97.00 106.00 1.00 2.00 36.00 23.00 136.00 129.00 1.16

0900109 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 114.00 141.00 1.00 2.00 50.00 25.00 167.00 166.00 2.63

0900110 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 170.00 166.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 60.00 75.00 242.00 243.00 1.44

0900111 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 229.00 259.00 2.00 8.00 6.00 55.00 42.00 294.00 307.00 1.09

0900112 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 383.00 374.00 7.00 1.00 18.00 3.00 87.00 101.00 495.00 479.00 1.04

0901298 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 178.00 108.00 2.00 1.00 19.00 1.00 199.00 110.00 1.79

1000001 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

69.00 108.00 8.00 2.00 9.00 7.00 86.00 117.00 0.85

1005907 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 15.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 20.00 9.00 0.76

1006047 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

12.00 17.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 14.00 25.00 2.14

1006059 Rural Major 

Collector

Railroad grade 

crossings

Protective devices 1.00 1.00 1.20

1006060 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

emergency vehicle preemption

67.00 72.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 21.00 82.00 94.00 1.24

1006063 Rural Local Road 

or Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

1788.00 2098.00 6.00 2.00 24.00 33.00 424.00 499.00 2242.00 2632.00 1.18

1006069 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

2.00 2.00 2.85

1006094 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

7.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 7.00 1.17

1006107 Rural Major 

Collector

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossing signing 1.00 1.00 7.20
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 67 of 79 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1006112 Rural Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1179.00 1309.00 7.00 2.00 30.00 173.00 306.00 198.00 1522.00 1682.00 1.14

1006120 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

17.00 36.00 10.00 27.00 36.00 1.82

1006476 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.91

1006555 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on ramp 38.00 4.00 7.00 45.00 4.00 13.50

1006632 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add long 

vehicle detection

2054.00 2376.00 13.00 5.00 40.00 27.00 587.00 259.00 2694.00 2667.00 0.55

1172118 Rural Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

5672.00 5024.00 16.00 10.00 88.00 29.00 1581.00 1710.00 7357.00 6773.00 1.29

1172173 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

912.00 1038.00 5.00 2.00 38.00 23.00 332.00 221.00 1287.00 1284.00 1.19

1172318 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

emergency vehicle preemption

1514.00 2001.00 6.00 1.00 41.00 16.00 359.00 332.00 1920.00 2350.00 1.19

1173043 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1163.00 1300.00 5.00 8.00 31.00 16.00 241.00 95.00 1440.00 1419.00 1.09

1173078 Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1027.00 950.00 1.00 27.00 22.00 165.00 168.00 1219.00 1141.00 1.20

1173111 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

40.00 21.00 10.00 2.00 50.00 23.00 2.46

1173115 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

acceleration/deceleration lane

36.00 24.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 3.00 49.00 29.00 0.99

1173116 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

7.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 3.00 1.20

1173165 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

32.00 24.00 1.00 14.00 8.00 47.00 32.00 1.21

1173169 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

150.00 146.00 1.00 14.00 2.00 36.00 38.00 201.00 186.00 1.32

1173227 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Roadside Barrier- metal 712.00 775.00 3.00 30.00 18.00 228.00 145.00 973.00 938.00 1.92

1173288 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

84.00 61.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 10.00 16.00 3.00 107.00 75.00 1.42

1173462 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1397.00 1409.00 4.00 1.00 39.00 17.00 404.00 210.00 1844.00 1637.00 2.05

1173467 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

126.00 105.00 3.00 6.00 5.00 62.00 23.00 197.00 133.00 1.21
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 68 of 79

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1173659 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.00 68.00 10.00 2.00 6.00 10.00 34.00 80.00 18.01

1173660 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 108.00 250.00 7.00 1.00 48.00 21.00 55.00 33.00 218.00 305.00 2.51

1173676 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 136.00 180.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 39.00 40.00 189.00 222.00 12.45

1173682 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 451.00 347.00 6.00 2.00 21.00 9.00 223.00 85.00 701.00 443.00 1.61

1173686 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 306.00 280.00 6.00 2.00 29.00 12.00 58.00 39.00 399.00 333.00 1.40

1173689 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 210.00 395.00 1.00 38.00 8.00 46.00 32.00 295.00 435.00 2.83

1296177 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 7898.00 7543.00 88.00 29.00 294.00 267.00 1898.00 1877.00 10178.00 9716.00 1.80

1296284 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 332.00 516.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 66.00 17.00 406.00 538.00 3.46

1296287 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 234.00 441.00 3.00 9.00 7.00 67.00 26.00 313.00 474.00 4.27

1296292 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

595.00 514.00 4.00 2.00 56.00 42.00 131.00 100.00 786.00 658.00 1.26

1296293 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 315.00 127.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 4.00 40.00 29.00 367.00 163.00 2.21

1296296 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

11153.00 10542.00 30.00 17.00 206.00 149.00 3297.00 2868.00 14686.00 13576.00 0.94

1296297 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled310.00 314.00 4.00 3.00 79.00 51.00 393.00 368.00 1.08

1296329 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 222.00 222.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 41.00 15.00 269.00 240.00 2.62

1296334 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips - center 11.00 13.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 8.00 23.00 22.00 1.24

1296336 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

986.00 1014.00 3.00 1.00 100.00 88.00 211.00 232.00 1300.00 1335.00 1.03

1296337 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled223.00 155.00 2.00 27.00 18.00 35.00 30.00 287.00 203.00 1.34

1296915 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips - center 7474.00 6412.00 94.00 54.00 266.00 207.00 1650.00 855.00 9484.00 7528.00 2.44
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 69 of 79

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1297140 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 8.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 3.00

1297291 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1163.00 1030.00 5.00 3.00 31.00 16.00 241.00 155.00 1440.00 1204.00 1.19

1297336 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

4048.00 4591.00 7.00 6.00 69.00 72.00 1130.00 1294.00 5254.00 5963.00 1.11

1297422 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 278.00 276.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 153.00 60.00 434.00 338.00 2.58

1297432 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

41.00 35.00 3.00 4.00 23.00 6.00 67.00 45.00 1.33

1297564 Rural Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

120.00 121.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 37.00 40.00 167.00 165.00 1.01

1297567 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

989.00 1093.00 4.00 104.00 85.00 243.00 201.00 1340.00 1379.00 1.00

1297568 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 8.00 14.00 1.00 8.00 9.00 18.00 21.00 35.00 44.00 1.08

1297604 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

48.00 161.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 13.00 7.00 7.00 58.00 185.00 0.39

1297605 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

13.00 16.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 19.00 0.21

1297610 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

92.00 96.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 110.00 121.00 0.64

1297626 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

75.00 101.00 2.00 15.00 27.00 90.00 130.00 0.24

1297627 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

15.00 61.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 18.00 12.00 34.00 80.00 0.41

1298212 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

19.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 27.00 21.00 1.17

1382014 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

8.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 11.00 4.00 1.57

1382200 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 6.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 3.60

1382538 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Lighting Intersection lighting 430.00 420.00 1.00 5.00 8.00 137.00 165.00 573.00 593.00 0.93

1382775 Urban Major 

Collector

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

12.00 27.00 5.00 15.00 12.00 73.00 27.00 105.00 66.00 3.57

1382777 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

10.00 22.00 10.00 7.00 33.00 4.00 53.00 33.00 3.10
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 70 of 79

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1382793 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

2089.00 2764.00 6.00 10.00 455.00 218.00 542.00 338.00 3092.00 3330.00 1.28

1382796 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

75.00 125.00 7.00 1.00 13.00 8.00 95.00 134.00 1.52

1382807 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

8.00 21.00 2.00 10.00 2.00 18.00 25.00 3.02

1382870 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

577.00 684.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 12.00 183.00 208.00 768.00 905.00 1.27

1382872 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Crosswalk 7.00 11.00 7.00 11.00 0.71

1382911 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 94.00 131.00 1.00 12.00 1.00 12.00 20.00 119.00 152.00 1.53

1382938 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

792.00 892.00 3.00 2.00 51.00 44.00 120.00 102.00 966.00 1040.00 1.08

1383062 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

421.00 368.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 4.00 86.00 92.00 516.00 465.00 1.45

1383068 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

5672.00 7024.00 36.00 21.00 88.00 129.00 1581.00 1710.00 7377.00 8884.00 1.34

1383085 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 27.00 54.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 17.00 18.00 46.00 73.00 1.09

1383101 Urban Local Road 

or Street

Railroad grade 

crossings

Protective devices 1.00

1383189 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

7764.00 1344.00 21.00 16.00 193.00 123.00 1233.00 925.00 9211.00 2408.00 1.07

1383253 Urban Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier - other 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.56

9802570 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

671.00 897.00 3.00 2.00 18.00 79.00 239.00 188.00 931.00 1166.00 0.51

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate.

The combined efforts of Indiana’s engineering, education, law enforcement, and emergency medical communities all contribute to the goal of overall decline in serious crash outcomes. In recent years, national and regional trends of larger 

total crash counts have occurred, however rates of fatalities and serious injuries have remained largely unchanged.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 71 of 79

The extent of contribution by HSIP projects to overall statewide traffic safety outcomes is difficult to quantify with current data sources and analysis capabilities, but it’s clear that safety programs are a factor influencing the frequency of 

severe crash outcomes. Fatal and injury crash trends experienced a somewhat consistent downward trend between the start of SAFETEA-LU in 2005 and continuing through 2008 before experiencing a large drop in 2009 at the same 

time as VMT estimates declined. From year 2010 through 2014, the downward trend resumed until strong growth in estimated VMT and serious crashes occurred in 2015 through the first half of 2018. 

The incidence of suspected serious injuries in most of the monitored emphasis areas decreased by 3.33% in calendar year 2017 compared to 2016, however, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased by 1.1% from 2016 to 2017. 

During the same time period the incidence of fatal injuries increased by 11.4%. This shift in crash severity is difficult to explain on the basis of weather patterns or rate of employment, two known major influences over crash rates.

The resulting rate of crashes with fatality per million vehicle miles of travel increased by 9.5%, while the rate of serious crashes involving probable class A injury outcomes decreased by 0.10%. In response to these trends INDOT has 

increased the number and variety of systemic safety programs applicable to both state and local roads. 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 72 of 79

Compliance Assessment

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

 03/01/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020 

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

 2021 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 0 0 100 0 100

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 0 0 100

Surface Type (23) 100 0 0 20

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 0 0 100 0 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 0 0 100 0 100

Segment Length (13) 100 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0 0 100 0 100

Median Type (54) 100 0

Access Control (22) 100 0
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 73 of 79

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 0 0 20

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 0 0 50

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0 0 100 0 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 0

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 74 of 79

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Interchange Type (182) 100 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 0.00 87.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 76.67 0.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

No change in data collection percentages have been reported by the INDOT Planning Inventory Office in FFY 2018.

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

For the Non-Local Paved road requirements, INDOT currently maintains all MIRE Required Elements as part of the annual HPMS report.

For the Local Paved Roads requirements, INDOT has full coverage of most required elements with the exception of Surface Type and in some cases Lane Count. A new funding program created through Indiana House Bill 1002 that has 

recently been passed that allocates funding utilized by Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) to create and maintain road data for Local Government Agencies. The plan is to leverage this effort to fill in gaps in coverage on local 

roads for any fully or partially missing elements.

Unpaved Roads are currently not identified in INDOT’s inventory data system. However, route information such as Route Identifier, Beginning Measure, End Measure, Functional Class and Type of Government Ownership are present 

and accounted for in the current data system. Once Surface Type data form local agencies is incorporated, as described above, unpaved roads will be identified in the inventory system.

INDOT currently has the data to support the creation of data elements for the Intersections of

Non-Local Paved Roads. The Road Inventory Office is currently acquiring spatial analysis software that will automate the creating and management of Intersection Geometries and supporting data.

INDOT has data to support the creation of data elements for the Interchanges\Ramps on Non-Local Paved Roads. Information can be created using the same planned software tools acquisition to be used for managing intersections and 

Interchanges/Ramps. Other data requirements will need to be determined once the spatial analysis tool is operational. If there is a need for additional data that can’t be extracted using those tools, new geoprocessing tools will have to be 

created by INDOT to meet the requirements. 

An official representative\authority to manage all MIRE FDE requirements has not yet been named, however an ad-hoc committee containing representatives from the Traffic Engineering Division, Office of Traffic Safety, Technical 

Planning and Programing Division, and Road Inventory Office will deliberate the necessary lines of authority.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 75 of 79

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No Transported from the Scene No Transported from the Scene No

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No Any injury that results in immediate 

transport from the scene for medical 

treatment

No Immediate Transport from the scene for 

treatment

No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The Indiana State Police is currently working with its crash database contractor to develop a new version of the state’s electronic crash reporting client software for officers, with a projected deployment by calendar year 2019.

As part of this upgrade, Indiana will maintain collection of data regarding transport from the scene, which contributes to compliance with MMUCC data element P24. “Transported to First Medical Facility By”

Currently, Indiana’s crash data reporting client only collects data for this element with a checkbox to indicate “immediate transport from the scene for medical treatment” which automatically codes the injury severity as “Incapacitating.” In 

the update, the automatic linkage will be removed and a subsequent question will ask if the transport was due to one of the seven specifically enumerated conditions identified in MMUCC data element P5. “Injury Status” for Suspected 

Serious Injury (A)

• Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood 

• Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg) 

• Crush injuries 

• Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations 

• Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body) 

• Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene 

• Paralysis 

All other P5 “Injury Status” attributes are already in compliance.

Additional Information: 

In 2014, INDOT submitted comments on the proposed National Highway Traffic Safety Performance Measures Rulemaking (NPRM) including a comment regarding the expected transition to the MMUCC 4th Edition as it relates to 

definition of Suspected Serious Injury. INDOT’s comments included the objection that an 18-month implementation period is unreasonable, far short of the time necessary to engage all partners to enable changes in the Indiana crash 

database to meet compliance with the new definition of Suspected Serious Injury contained in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Forth (4th) Edition. Prior to this proposed rulemaking, incapacitating injury (victim 

transported from the scene) was deemed an acceptable measure in prior editions of the MMUCC. On March 15, 2016 the National Performance Management Measures Highway Safety Improvement Program final rule was published in the 

Federal Register and shared with all consulting partners. 

Regulations promulgated in 2016 by Federal Highway Administration to support the federal administration of transportation funding included a requirement that states report Suspected Serious Injuries using the criteria established in the 

MMUCC 4th Edition. This linkage to a federal regulation to what had historically been an advisory document’s recommended definition put Indiana’s current designation of incapacitating injury out of compliance. The new regulation for 

establishing and reporting traffic safety performance measures necessitate that Indiana determine a method to approximate counting of Suspected Serious Injuries (per the MMUCC 4th Edition) so that current Indiana crash records could be 

used to calculate historic and projected traffic safety performance counts in accord with “A” injuries on the KABCO scale.

In establishing a proxy for missing data regarding Suspected Serious Injuries, Indiana analyzed statewide incapacitating injury counts that remained reasonably stable across the 10 years prior to the Indiana TRCC reclassification that began 

in November 2014. Crash data records for the years 2004 to 2013 were analyzed to determine a percentage of the total number of non-fatal incapacitating injuries recorded each of these years. The incapacitating injury counts from these 

years are assumed to equate to the current definition of suspected serious injuries and were evaluated to establish the average percentage of non-fatal suspected serious injuries that contribute to total injury counts. The annual average 

percent contribution of suspected serious injuries prior to the 2014 Indiana TRCC definition change was found to be 7.1%. Weighting this value to account for an increases in suspected serious injury counts in the most recent three years of 

the 10 year period (2011, 2012 and 2013), the resulting value is adjusted to 7.2% of all injuries. Indiana intends to use the 7.2% estimate of non-fatal injuries for each year to represent the number of statewide “Suspected Serious Injuries”

until such time as a specific count of MMUCC 4th Edition compliant data can be incorporated into the Indiana Crash Database. 
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 76 of 79

INDOT asks that FHWA accept Indiana’s described reporting methodology as part of any review of Indiana Crash data and Performance Target Setting methodology.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2021 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The last HSIP program assessment took place in December of 2016 as a peer-program assessment of Indiana’s HSIP conducted with FHWA engineers from the Headquarters’ Office of Safety and three peer states. The peer team 

reviewed Indiana’s guiding HSIP documents. In December, 2016, the FHWA Peer-Program Review Team visited Indianapolis to interview the numerous offices that contribute to the highway safety program in Indiana. Details of the 

program assessment are contained in the Indian HSIP Peer-Program Review document dated February 10, 2017. 

The purpose of the review was to allow an outside look of Indiana’s HSIP and determine:

1) Noteworthy Practices, and

2) Opportunities for Improvements.

As with most any review activity, the intent of the review was to not only fulfill the requirement of a law, regulation, or oversight document, in this case FHWA’s National Program Stewardship and Oversight Plan, but, more importantly, to 

provide the State DOT with an objective appraisal of its HSIP and identify strengths and areas for improvement.

During the peer-program review, the team identified several practices and procedures in which INDOT exceled. These areas include:

Development of timely crash data and statistically-based data analysis tools.

Communication and coordination with safety partners (e.g. LTAP, ICJI, MPOs, Districts)

Consistent, up-to-date crash facts published weekly via the Crash Snapshot

Emphasis on systemic projects types

Development of a 5-year program of projects

The program assessment team also noted some areas in which further development could improve the effectiveness of the HSIP in Indiana. These areas can be summarized into the following:

Documentation – Develop a combined HSIP Manual and Procedures document

Data – Continue to upgrade crash reporting tools, quality assurance and MIRE FDE data

Local Road Safety – Improve call procedures and administration of local projects

Funding – Strategies to address rising balances of apportioned safety funds
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 77 of 79

Safety Performance Targets – Methodology to set Safety Performance Targets.

(Task Completed before July 1, 2017)

Details of these findings can be seen in the sections titled Noteworthy Practices and Opportunities for Improvement.
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 78 of 79

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 79 of 79

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of 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. 

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.