Page 1 of 86

INDIANA
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 86

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......................................................................................................................................... 32

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 32

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 37

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 43

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 43

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 59

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 62

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 64

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 64

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 65

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 71

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 80
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 86

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.” 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 86

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) 2017. 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 railhighway 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 2017, beginning October 1, 2016 and ending on 

September 30, 2017. 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. 

In Calendar year 2016, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased to 797.65 Hundred Million 

Vehicle Miles of Travel (HMVMT) or a 1.2% increase above the CY 2015 estimate of 788.19 

HMVMT. The number of fatal injuries rose from 817 in calendar year 2015 to 822 in 2016, which 

represents an increase of 0.61%. As a result of the increased VMT, the Fatality Rate decreased 

slightly from 1.030 fatalities per HMVMT in 2015 to 1.010 in 2016. It should be noted that the rise in 

fatalities for 2016 mirrors to a certain extent similar increases in the number of fatal crashes recorded 

in surrounding states of the Midwest region. The 5-year rolling average rate of fatalities increased to 

1.018 HMVMT in CY 2016 as compared the rate of 1.008 in CY 2015. 

While this report also indicates an increase in suspected serious injuries, an actual comparison to 

prior years is inaccurate and is complicated by the implementation by Indiana of a new injury 

classification methodology that’s described below and in more detail in the response to question 33 

(old Question 26).

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. While the 2014 change (referred to herein as reclassification) removed the 

subjective element from the determination of incapacitating injuries, the number of reported 

incapacitating injuries rose significantly above a likely accurate count of potential Class “A” injuries. 

INDOT along with the Indiana TRCC continue to monitor and assess the effect of the reclassification 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 86

method on the relative proportion of injury severity classifications. To date, the apparent effect of 

incapacitating injury reclassification has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that 

are classified as incapacitating injuries.

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. 

Regulations promulgated in 2016 to support the federal administration of transportation funding 

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 (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) 2017, the total expected obligation of federal program funds for safety, 

from all programs (excluding the annual rail-highway crossing safety program) will be about $44.4 

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 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 86

originally took place in September of 2008 with the submission of the FFY 2008 HSIP/HRRRP report. 

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. Individual Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPO), receive annual apportionments of obligation authority, while predetermined 

amounts of obligation authority are set-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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 86

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. 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 86

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. 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 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 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. 

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 or HRRRP 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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 86

The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety is located within the Traffic Engineering Division and is in turn part 

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

of Traffic Safety are 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 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 86

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. 

?

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-Local Agency Assistance Divison and Budget & Project Accounting Division

Other-Capital Asset Management

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. 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 86

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 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 and the 

state’s 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. 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 86

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 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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 86

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 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.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 86

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.

INDOT 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.

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

crash types that are addressed. 

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?
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 86

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

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

Most bike safety projects are identified and proposed for HSIP funding by local agencies as part of 

their non-motorized program planning due to exposure probability of bike involved crashes and are 

most often prioritized by MPOs. Projects proposed by rural local agencies or by INDOT are prioritized 

by the Office of Traffic Safety and the relevant INDOT district office. Typically bike lanes are installed 

as part of road diets or elimination of on-street parking.

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?
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 86

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?

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

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

Curve Safety projects on the State Highway network are identified by annual network safety screening and 

are proposed to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritizations by the relevant INDOT district office 

according to relative risk for future lane departure crashes. 

Local agencies may identify local road curves as part of a proposed systemic curve safety project. Rural public 

agency projects are prioritized by INDOT while MPOs prioritize proposed projects within their planning 

areas. Typically enhanced warning devices are installed while High Friction Surface Treatment's may also be 

called for where existing friction is lower than acceptable.

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]
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 86

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

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

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

High Risk Rural Road projects may consist of either safety spot improvements or systemic improvements and 

are identified on the State Highway network by annual network safety screening. State network projects are 

proposed to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritization by OTS and the relevant INDOT district office 

according to relative future crash risk. 

Most local agencies are unaware of roadway functional class therefore all identification HSIP eligible projects 

for potential HRRR program funding is performed by INDOT OTS.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 86

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?

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).
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 86

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness : 50

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

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

Intersection Safety Improvement projects may consist of either safety spot improvements or systemic 

improvements and are identified on the State Highway network by annual network safety screening. State 

network projects are proposed to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritization by OTS and the relevant 

INDOT district office according to relative future crash risk.

Local agencies typically identify intersection safety improvements for spot improvement countermeasures with 

some utilization of the intersection safety systemic countermeasures. Rural public agency projects are 

prioritized by INDOT while MPOs prioritize proposed projects within their planning areas.

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 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Probability of specific crash types
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 86

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

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

All local sponsored projects are identified and proposed for HSIP funding by local agencies. The majority of 

local project proposals are in urban areas and are therefore most often prioritized by MPOs. Projects proposed 

by rural local agencies are prioritized by the Office of Traffic Safety and the relevant INDOT district office. 

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 86

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

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

Median Barrier projects are conducted on State network roadways and consist of the systemic application of 

median barrier to mitigate cross median crash severity. Local agencies may apply for HSIP project eligibility for 

median barrier, but to date this has not happened.

Program: Pedestrian Safety 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 86

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 

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
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 86

Cost Effectiveness : 50

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

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

Pedestrian safety projects are identified and proposed for HSIP funding either by INDOT or by local 

agencies as part of their non-motorized program planning due to exposure probability of 

pedestrian involved crashes. Most pedestrian projects occur in urban areas and are prioritized by 

MPOs. Projects proposed by rural local agencies or by INDOT are prioritized by the Office of Traffic 

Safety and the relevant INDOT district office. Typically curb ramps, refuge areas or hybrid 

beacons are installed as the primary countermeasures.

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?
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 86

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

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

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

Roadway departure projects on the State Highway network are identified by annual network safety 

screening and are proposed to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritizations by the relevant INDOT 

district office according to relative risk for future lane departure crashes. For state system projects, 

the most typical countermeasures are outside edge guardrail, median cable barrier or centerline and 

edge-line rumble stripes.

Local agencies may identify locations with increased risk of road departure typically at local road curves. Rural 

public agency projects are prioritized by INDOT while MPOs prioritize proposed projects within their planning 

areas. 

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
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 86

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

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

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

Sign Replacement and Improvement systemic projects are exclusively local agency sponsored safety 

improvements as state network roadways are part of the INDOT Maintenance program. Proposed projects are 

typically identified by local agencies due to deteriorated condition or lack of retroreflectivity of their regulatory 

and warning signs. Rural public agency projects are prioritized by INDOT while MPOs prioritize proposed 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 86

projects within their planning areas. Each local agency is required to conduct a geocoded inventory of their 

existing signs and commit to ongoing maintenance of the replaced signs. 

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

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 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 86

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

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

Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Stripes are a subset of the Roadway Departure program and projects are 

conducted on State network roadways and consist of the systemic application of the countermeasure to 

reduce cross median and roadway departure crashes. Project identification and prioritization are conducted by 

INDOT OTS and district staff. 

Local agencies may apply for HSIP eligibility for rumble stripe systemic projects, but to date this has not 

happened.

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 

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
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 86

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

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

Traffic signal and non-signalized intersection visibility systemic improvement projects are a subset of 

the Intersection Safety program. projects on the State Highway network are identified by annual network safety 

screening and are proposed to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritizations by the relevant INDOT district 

office according to relative risk for future crashes.

Local agencies may identify intersections for systemic application for HSIP eligibility. Rural public agency 

projects are prioritized by INDOT while MPOs prioritize proposed projects within their planning areas.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 77.8

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 86

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Horizontal curve signs

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

The goal of the INDOT safety program is to obligate a minimum of 50% of HSIP spending on systemic 

improvement work types. Actual obligation for systemic projects may vary on a year to year basis.

INDOT performs Safety Edge as a general paving standard rather than as a systemic HSIP program.

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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 installing connected vehicle-related 

communication at select traffic signals in the state and will conduct a research study of the potential 

their effectiveness, however the project is with 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. 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 86

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 is used to program traffic safety projects on INDOT system roads 

requires selection and prioritization of a fiscally constrained set of project 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 my 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 ratifies the funding 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. 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 86

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 and 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 report 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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 86

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) $40,225,929 $17,078,538 42.46%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$3,885,158 $3,496,642 90%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $18,285,981 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $4,000,000 $5,013,797 125.34%

Totals $48,111,087 $43,874,958 91.2%

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, 2017. Amounts listed in the question 23 table reflect 

obligated funds totals at the time of reporting August 31, 2017. Changes in the obligation totals may 

have occurred subsequent to that date.

Due to the Section 164 Penalty Fund requirement in FFY 2017 the actual obligation of HSIP eligible 

funds (absent the HRRRP Special Rule) is $35,364,519 or 87.91% of the programmed HSIP.

.

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and operated) or tribal safety projects?
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 86

33%

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

63%

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

INDOT Allocates 33% of each annual apportionment to fund local agency sponsored HSIP eligible 

projects. The allocation to local agencies for FFY 2017 is $16,425,925

In FFY 2017 the projected total obligation of funds to construct local safety projects is expected to be 

63%of total apportionment or $29,181,960

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

$250,000

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

$285,000

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?

$24,613,894

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 2017 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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 86

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 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 4th

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. 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 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 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 86

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?

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 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 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. 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 86

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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 86

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

0400495 Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

0.502 Miles $2353429.33 $2423523.36 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,920 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Increase sight 

distance

0710463 Roadway Roadway widening - curve 0.44 Miles $430820.6 $439909.79 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,580 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Increase lane 

width

1172207 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

18 Intersections $652153.67 $652153.67 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1296261 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

30 Intersections $524980.27 $531490.43 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1296298 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify turn 

lane storage

0.133 Miles $395548.7 $479023.57 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,150 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Increase storage 

1296299 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

0.114 Miles $681120.18 $682981.61 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,995 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Increase storage 

1296422 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 453.06 Miles $447635.41 $447635.41 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

31,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Replacement

1296424 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

9 Intersections $1002306.4 $1028806.4 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

25,900 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1296428 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

3087 Numbers $482187.33 $482187.33 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

30,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Increase sign 

visibility

1296843 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 13087 Numbers $217748.57 $217748.57 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

183,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Replacement

1296846 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $117342.23 $183142.23 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

10,081 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1296849 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection signing - add 

enhanced regulatory sign 

(double-up and/or oversize)

20 Intersections $101658.22 $101658.22 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

20,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1296914 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 2090 Numbers $242380.9 $242380.9 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Replacement

1296917 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

22 Intersections $399586.34 $399586.34 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major 

Collector

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1296920 Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

8.3 Miles $684440.75 $684440.75 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Install Rumble 

Strips

1296961 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

11 Intersections $207156.96 $207156.96 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

10,068 30 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1296966 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

9 Intersections $286647.9 $287792.9 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,700 40 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1296971 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

29 Intersections $671187.46 $671187.46 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

25,000 60 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase signal 

visibility
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 86

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

1296972 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection signing - add 

enhanced regulatory sign 

(double-up and/or oversize)

36 Intersections $44614.22 $44614.22 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1297111 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

4 Intersections $453554.75 $453554.75 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

23,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1298230 Roadside Barrier - cable 30.17 Miles $3232412.37 $3232412.37 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

30,343 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install cable 

barrier

1382614 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

1 Intersections $323664.74 $330464.74 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

9,195 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase turning 

radii

1500613 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

emergency vehicle preemption

39 Intersections $764640.32 $849600.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

36,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Install Optical 

Preempt

1592510 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1411335.81 $1691465.81 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,355 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Construct a 

roundabout

1593072 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 2470 Numbers $149745.34 $149745.34 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

57,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Replacement

1600079 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $155381.34 $228627.91 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

17,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600084 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $132582.35 $132689.98 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

18,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600085 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $54399.14 $54506.77 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

5,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600086 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $44091.05 $44198.68 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

8,440 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600087 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $40661.89 $40769.52 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

5,643 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600088 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $56132.58 $56240.21 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

7,589 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600089 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $159053.04 $159160.67 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

23,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600090 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $81944.39 $82052.02 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

23,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600099 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

27.5 Miles $128050.15 $128050.15 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,005 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Replacement

1600113 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 226.69 Miles $244007.45 $244007.45 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install Rumble 

Strips

1600118 Roadway Rumble strips - center 16.8 Miles $261905.67 $261905.67 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Replacement

1600125 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 3.83 Miles $191446.13 $191446.13 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Replacement

1600465 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $125325.84 $125325.84 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Positive 

Guideance
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 86

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

1601134 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 22 Intersections $275267.96 $276258.89 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1601765 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $66703.08 $66703.08 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9,800 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1601762 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $22092.95 $27616.19 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

26,675 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1601761 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $18137.03 $22671.28 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

25,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1601765 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $66703.08 $66703.08 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9,800 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1297755 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1294 Numbers $207576.84 $230640.93 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

22,800 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1297756 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

313 Numbers $120883.89 $134315.43 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

10,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1298317 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

651 Numbers $161900.59 $161900.59 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

45,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Increase sign 

visibility

1383409 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 36 Intersections $281993.42 $386901.61 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Local Road 

or Street

5,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1383434 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

648 Numbers $87237.9 $96931 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,600 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1383447 Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $132030 $146700 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

5,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Sign Inventory

1383477 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 8 Intersections $170422.92 $276428.66 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Local Road 

or Street

2,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1400720 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

301 Numbers $52223.97 $58026.63 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor

Arterial

4,400 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1400735 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 9 Intersections $74837.19 $113596.49 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Local Road 

or Street

1,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1400809 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 36 Intersections $280865.38 $416572.65 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Local Road 

or Street

1,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1400810 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

262 Numbers $79578.93 $88421.05 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Local Road 

or Street

1,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1400849 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 6 Intersections $81001.27 $124201.25 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor 

Collector

5,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 86

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

1400858 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

0.46 Miles $91289.89 $167612.36 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road

or Street

1,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve Ped. 

System

1401687 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.212 Miles $397184.43 $630516.03 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

6,950 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Construct left turn 

lane

1592418 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

4236 Numbers $573764.61 $659763.2 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

5,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1592419 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1198 Numbers $104170.6 $106532.4 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor

Arterial

4,000 40 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1600069 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

3 Intersections $420839.92 $420839.92 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1600091 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

403 Signs $120933.49 $120933.49 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Increase sign 

visibility

1601181 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 19 Intersections $263556.59 $292840.66 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

3,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1601789 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 13 Intersections $449274.07 $499193.41 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve Ped. 

System

0810280 Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1.49 Miles $2852805 $19287183.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

25,075 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Improve Driving 

Surface

1005755 Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 0.11 Miles $14285.34 $15872.6 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

1,300 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install Lighting

1006029 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

2208 Numbers $473760.39 $476538.17 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

13,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1006030 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

605 Numbers $115097.18 $116174.96 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,100 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1383351 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

207 Numbers $49544.1 $55049 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

1,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1400166 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 13 Intersections $423720 $564436 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,300 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1400279 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.108 Miles $343817.27 $346928.38 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,300 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Provide more 

capacity

1400569 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.568 Miles $1003318.25 $1417147.81 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,750 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Bicyclists Construct shared 

use path

1400709 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

0.27 Miles $1721939.27 $1913265.86 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,740 40 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Construct a 

roundabout
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 86

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

1400714 Railroad grade 

crossings

Protective devices 2 Locations $516602.95 $574003.28 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

2,680 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Enhance RR 

Crossing

1400963 Railroad grade 

crossings

Grade separation 1 Locations $1029965.49 $1144406.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

10,500 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Grade separation

1401032 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify turn 

lane storage

0.133 Miles $1903433.65 $2352642.06 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,150 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Increase storage

1401042 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

2201 Numbers $242761.28 $263223.86 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1401046 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

2765 Numbers $613099.78 $635289.94 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,500 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1401347 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1901 Numbers $639349 $639349 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

9,500 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1401349 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1335 Numbers $443938.5 $493265 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

35,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1401685 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

632 Numbers $75332.81 $98913.63 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

1,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1601764 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $47100.01 $68875.01 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

12,550 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1500320 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

400 Numbers $353713.54 $385992.83 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

2,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1500321 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at non-intersection location

1 Locations $147292.23 $157680.26 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,800 20 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Increase ped xing 

visibility

1500322 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian warning signs -

add/modify flashers

1 Locations $220857.07 $245396.74 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,800 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Increase ped xing 

visibility

1601763 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Intersections $8232.97 $10545.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,575 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Positive guidance

1500404 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 7 Intersections $214757.38 $238619.32 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

20,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1500423 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - replace 

existing indications 

(incandescent-to-LED and/or 8-

to-12 inch dia.)

8 Intersections $60733.04 $67481.16 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

20,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Change signal 

heads

1500428 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 55 Ramps $226250.46 $251389.41 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,000 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1500435 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 53 Ramps $723940.06 $804377.84 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1500437 Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

35 Locations $1416746 $1673162.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

20,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Upgrade Barrier 

End Treatments
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 86

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

1500439 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 115 Ramps $307020.62 $342134.02 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

17,500 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1500440 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 115 Ramps $435604.4 $484004.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1500441 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 115 Ramps $250079.2 $277865.57 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1500442 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian warning signs -

overhead

6 Locations $57916.29 $60221.29 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,500 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians School speed 

zone signs

1500443 Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

18 Locations $620413.71 $689348.57 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Upgrade Barrier 

End Treatments

1500481 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 57 Ramps $879565.31 $977294.79 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

21,800 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install ADA Curb 

Ramps

1592417 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

251 Numbers $104102.2 $112602.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

4,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Increase sign 

visibility

1601759 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $64838.19 $99161.99 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,850 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase signal 

visibility

1601760 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $34624.44 $43280.55 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Increase 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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 86

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 820 693 754 751 781 784 745 821 822

Serious Injuries 3,521 3,360 3,436 3,265 3,402 3,270 3,338 3,434 3,505

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.155 0.904 0.995 0.982 0.990 1.001 1.030 1.037 1.031

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.961 4.385 4.535 4.269 4.311 4.176 4.214 4.357 4.394

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

78 60 78 85 84 94 95 112 115

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

290 276 337 322 321 395 285 279 285
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 86

600

650

700

750

800

850

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

3100

3150

3200

3250

3300

3350

3400

3450

3500

3550

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 86

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 86

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 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 86

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 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 2014, 

FARS Annual Report File for the year 2015

Indiana State Police FARS Report for the year 2016

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

Year 2016

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 -

Interstate

54 90 0.67 1.12

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

71 175 1.64 4.05

Rural Minor Arterial 81 207 2.19 5.61

Rural Minor Collector 29 124 1.33 5.82

Rural Major Collector 116 398 1.92 6.61

Rural Local Road or Street 101 246 2.04 4.96

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

41 204 0.39 1.93
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 86

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 -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

13 44 0.98 3.25

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

93 832 0.86 7.68

Urban Minor Arterial 69 649 0.77 7.28

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 39 277 0.82 5.83

Urban Local Road or Street 85 223 0.64 1.68
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 86

Year 2015

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 422.91 1,446.69 1.07 3.66

County Highway Agency 204.81 808.17 1.1 4.32

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

147.76 1,180.17 0.73 5.83

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
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 86

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 86

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 86

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 86

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 86

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

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

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 86

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

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 86

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 86

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

Data Tables for 5 year averages form 2013 through 2015 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 

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

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 86

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.

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 2016, the early estimate of vehicle miles of travel increased by 1.20% above 2015. The number of 

police reported fatalities increased by 1.22%. All injuries increased by 2.04%. Suspected serious 

injury crashes appear to show a small decrease. 

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 2016 INDOT has undertaken 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 2016 crash data shows that Indiana is experiencing conditions 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 2016, Indiana was part of a national trend of increased 

numbers of severe crash events resulting in severe and fatal injuries.

Crashes resulting from vehicle departure from the travel lanes (including roadway departure, head-on 

and opposite direction sideswipe) continue to be the most numerous harmful events in 2016. The 5 

year average of fatalities resulting from single vehicle lane departures in 2016 accounted for 42.7% of 

all Indiana motor vehicle fatalities, compared to the 5 year average of 44.8% calculated for 2015. 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 make up the second worst type of harmful event. 

In 2016 the 5 year average of intersection fatalities contributed 33.1% of total traffic fatalities, similar 

to the 32.7% average from 2015. INDOT is advancing systemic improvements to increase the 

visibility of both signalized and unsignalized intersections. INDOT is also engaged in a changing out 

older 5 section heads that 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 

placing increased emphasis on timely modernization of traffic signals and more visible traffic signal 

heads. 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 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 86

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 

2016 the 5 year rolling average rate of pedestrian involved serious crashes made up 5.7% of the total 

compared to a 6.3% average in 2015. 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 that involve bicyclists was 2.1% 

compared to the 5 year average in 2015 of 2.3%. The number of motorcycle and moped crashes was 

slightly lower in 2016 compared to 2015, but it should be noted that similar to non-motorized 

vulnerable road users’ exposure for motorcycle/moped riders is generally rising. 

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 814.9 

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

Data Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System 2009-2014 FARS Final File Count 

2015 FARS Annual Report File 2016 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 2018 value of (846) as described in 

the following methodology. Baseline projections are calculated using fatality counts 

and applying an equation to generate predictive values for 2017-2018. 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 2017-2018 period can be reasonably 

anticipated in Indiana. As of April 2017, Indiana, at 3.6% unemployment, is just .7% 

away from its historic high monthly employment level recorded during September and 

October 2000 (2.9% unemployment). 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 3479.8 

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

Data Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System 2009-2014 FARS Final File Count 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 86

2015 FARS Annual Report File 2016 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 2018 value of (3,577) as described 

in the following methodology. Baseline projections are calculated using fatality counts 

and applying an equation to generate predictive values for 2017-2018. 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 2017-2018 period can be reasonably 

anticipated in Indiana. As of April 2017, Indiana, at 3.6% unemployment, is just .7% 

away from its historic high monthly employment level recorded during September and 

October 2000 (2.9% unemployment). 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. 

Fatality Rate 1.036 

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 2015. For the purpose of comparison to the SHSO annual report, the 5 

year average performance target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2018 

value of (1.070) as described in the following methodology. Estimated/Predicted 

values for 2016-2018: 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 4.347 

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 2014-2015. The 5 year average performance 

target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2018 value of (4.379) as described 

in the following methodology. Estimated/Predicted values for 2016-2018: 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 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 86

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 417.0 

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 2015 FARS Annual Report File 2016 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” 2014-2016 an estimated count amounting to 13% of all nonfatal injuries Baseline projections of Non-Motorist Fatalities are calculated using 

FARS Fatality counts and applying a equation to generate predictive values for 2016-

2018. 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 

2017-2018 with non-motorist incapacitating injuries projected as 13% of projected all 

non-motorist 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.

*Based on (Target Year - 4) to (Target Year) 5-year average

[For example, for the 2017 reporting period the target year is 2018 (to be displayed above table for this 

question). The footnote would read “Based on 2014 - 2018 5 year average”.]

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. 

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. A final agreement on 

each target that was set for federal fiscal year 2018 was reached in meeting held on June 22nd of 

2017.

The Indiana Traffic Safety Performance Target Setting Team consisted of the following 

organizations: 

Indiana Department of Transportation, Office of Traffic Safety

Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, Traffic Safety and Research Divisions (SHSO)
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 86

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 2017 Highway safety Plan Report 

to NHTSA before the July 1, 2017 deadline.

INDOT is planning follow-up sessions with data mangers of the Indiana MPOs to fully explain the

methodology used by INDOT and the partner group to set Indiana’s safety performance targets and 

to discuss each MPO’s plans to meet their individual target setting requirements.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

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? 

Yes

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

In 2012 NHTSA made a calculation 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. INDOT has programmed projects in fiscal year 2017 that meet the requirements of the HRRR 

Program.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

89 112 100 106 103 99 112

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

222 244 267 257 252 255 275
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 86

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

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 86

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 2017 was to maintain integrity of planned $44 million 

investment in the 2017 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 summary of results relative to that federal fiscal year 2017 goal. The safety program effected a slightly 

positive change in C-E, down to about $24,200. Overall, the fiscal year 2017 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

Policy change

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 86

At the start of calendar 2017 INDOT approved seven new systemic safety project work types, 

bringing a total number of 25 work types available for state or local project sponsors.

On March 1 of 2016 the Governor of Indiana signed a revised Strategic Highway Safety Plan that 

reorients the traffic safety emphasis areas in a manner more conductive to local agency involvement 

in HSIP funded safety improvements. 

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 2016

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure Combined Runoff-road, Head-on

& Opposite Dir 

Sideswipe

445.4 1,563.06 0.57 2

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 256.8 857.33 0.33 1.09

Intersections Intersections 193 1,208.67 0.25 1.54

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 77.2 215.76 0.1 0.28

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 13 76.11 0.02 0.1

Motorcyclists Motorcycle & 

Moped

119.4 519.75 0.15 0.66

Work Zones Work Zones 13.4 61.72 0.02 0.08

Data All 824 3,505 1.04 4.45
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 86

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 86

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

In 2016 INDOT began 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 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 68 of 86

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 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 nonfatal 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?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Center and Edgeline Longitudinal 

Rumble Stripe 

Description: 

Constructed milled-in longitudinal 

rumble stripes along predetermined 

centerlines of un-divided two and four 

lane highways, and along the right 

travel lane edge line of treated 

highways. Intended to reduce the 

number of lane departure crash 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 69 of 86

events; specifically run-off-road, 

opposite direction sideswipes and 

head-on crashes between two motor 

vehicles. 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 317 run miles of centerline and 255 

run miles of edgeline rumble 

Years Before: 3 years (normalized to yearly crash 

frequency) 

Years After: 1.5 to 3 years (normalized to yearly 

crash frequency) 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

Methodology - Simple Before/After 

analysis of applicable fatal and injury 

crash records of in-service 

longitudinal centerline rumble stripes 

and edgeline rumble strips located on 

undivided two and four lane 

highways. 

Results - Fatal crash events with the

targeted manners of collision 

experienced an 84.1% crash 

reduction. All injury crash events 

experienced an 8.2 % reduction, 

File Name: Rumble Stripe Before After Study Final 11-15-2016.pdf

CounterMeasures: Cable Barrier Systems 

Description: 

Cable Barriers constructed along 

predetermined grass medians of rural 

interstate highways to mitigate 

severity of cross median crash events. 

The barriers consist of four strand 

high tension work rope barriers 

meeting tests level 4 criteria. 

Target Crash Type: Cross median 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 436 miles 

Years Before: 3 years normalized to yearly crash 

frequency 

Years After: 2 and 3 years normalized to yearly 

crash frequency 

Methodology: Simple before/after 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 70 of 86

Results: 

Methodology – Simple Before/After 

analysis of applicable fatal and injury 

crash records of in service cable 

barrier systems located in depressed 

grass medians of rural interstate 

highways. Crash records were 

normalized to an annual basis and 

analyzed for both pre and post -

installation time periods. Results -

Fatal cross median crashes showed 

the greatest reduction when 

comparing before and after crash 

performance which was calculated 

statewide to be 70%. Incapacitating 

Injury crashes (involving persons 

transported from the scene for 

treatment for any reason) showed an 

overall reduction of 10%. 

File Name: Rumble Stripe Before After Study Final 11-15-2016.pdf
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 71 of 86

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0800443 ST 1024, 

Atwater Ave @ 

Henderson 

St./relocation of 

access to Dun St. fr 

Atwater Ave

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

23.00 16.00 8.00 3.00 31.00 19.00 1.75

SR 46, At Parkview 

Drive, E of Nashville

Other Principal

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

7.00 7.00 1.00 7.00 8.00 0.565217391304348

IR 1001, Relocate 

entrance to Portage 

HS on Airport Rd appx 

1400' no of US6 at 

mile 23.1

Minor Arterial Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to increase cross 

street offset

9.00 14.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 19.00 23.00 1.88888888888889

SR 15, At CR 100 

South / Rozella Road

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

11.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 1.00 8

SR 59, 0.5 mile N of 

SR 67

Major Collector Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1

ST 1021, Dartmouth 

Dr & Washington 

Center Rd

Major Collector Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

41.00 15.00 20.00 2.00 61.00 17.00 4.37837837837838

US 30, Crossover 

removal, from Taney 

Pl, .39 mi W of SR 55 

to 81st Pl, .2 mi E of 

SR 53

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Access 

management

Median crossover - close 

crossover

571.00 588.00 1.00 8.00 8.00 146.00 154.00 726.00 750.00 0.981067961165048

US 27, At SR 218 Other Principal 

Arterial (OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

10.00 9.00 2.00 1.00 12.00 10.00 1.28571428571429

SR 64, At CR 350 E Minor Arterial Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

21.00 14.00 1.00 22.00 14.00 1.9

IR 1016, CR 300N at 

Fortville Pike

Major Collector Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

14.00 10.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 17.00 16.00 0.944444444444445

ST 1001, Sign 

Replacements in City 

of Elkhart

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

6296.00 6304.00 19.00 13.00 71.00 133.00 1019.00 977.00 7405.00 7427.00 0.886260268659874

ST 1001, Fort Wayne 

CBD - Countdown 

Indicator Signal 

updates Ph 2: 

Calhoun St and East

Multiple District Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

402.00 445.00 5.00 12.00 94.00 120.00 501.00 577.00 0.851053159478435

ST 1001, Fort Wayne 

CBD - Countdown 

Indicator Signal 

updates Ph 1. 

Harrison St & West

Multiple District Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

162.00 166.00 1.00 4.00 43.00 38.00 206.00 208.00 0.992314647377938
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 72 of 86

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

VA 1073, Purchase & 

installation of 960 

pedestrian countdown 

heads at 120 

intersections

Minor Arterial Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

74.00 107.00 35.00 51.00 90.00 115.00 587.00 669.00 786.00 942.00 0.82962962962963

ST 1001, Placement 

of backplates on 

signal heads at 21 

locations (see project 

log)

Multiple District Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

67409.00 71684.00 212.00 226.00 1194.00 1169.00 14721.00 15044.00 83536.00 88123.00 0.972351633664774

ST 1001, 82nd Street 

in Castleton

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1265.00 1608.00 3.00 4.00 14.00 10.00 214.00 233.00 1496.00 1855.00 0.841091492776886

SR 267, At CR 100 N, 

1.01 mile N of US 36

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

50.00 54.00 1.00 10.00 6.00 60.00 61.00 1.02816901408451

SR 267, At CR 100 N, 

1.01 miles N of US 36

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

30.00 39.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 35.00 44.00 0.794392523364486

ST 1001, School 

Flasher Upgrades, 

various locations in 

Mishawaka

N/A Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

6384.00 6758.00 15.00 8.00 70.00 122.00 1418.00 1444.00 7887.00 8332.00 0.957371383782243

ST 1001, Intersection 

of Dragoon Trail and 

Logan Street

Minor Arterial Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

27.00 16.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 35.00 22.00 1.5979381443299

ST 1001, Sign 

Replacements in City 

of Goshen

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1403.00 1845.00 2.00 2.00 16.00 23.00 251.00 288.00 1672.00 2158.00 1.03289920375285

ST 1001, Dragoon 

Trail from Russell Ave 

to Clover Road

Minor Arterial Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

53.00 45.00 1.00 4.00 21.00 14.00 75.00 63.00 0.726352530541012

ST 1001, Plainfield 

Various Locations

Local Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

863.00 634.00 5.00 15.00 4.00 154.00 116.00 1037.00 754.00 1.81964407939767

ST 1001, Traffic signal 

backplates

N/A Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

2333.00 2750.00 7.00 7.00 32.00 57.00 483.00 490.00 2855.00 3304.00 0.886498547551888

ST 1001, Installation 

of Countdown 

Pedestrian Indications

N/A Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

11.00 8.00 4.00 1.00 12.00 15.00 60.00 64.00 87.00 88.00 0.984096385542169

ST 1001, Backing 

plates on existing 

traffic signals - 60 

intersections

N/A Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

2604.00 2677.00 78.00 61.00 662.00 611.00 3344.00 3349.00 1.13681991567958

VA 1068, Sign 

upgrades - Hamilton 

Co., Fishers, Carmel, 

Westfield, Cicero & 

Noblesville

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

16912.00 17731.00 39.00 27.00 232.00 323.00 2686.00 2817.00 19869.00 20898.00 1.07285714285714

ST 1070, Back plates 

on signals at 24 

intersections on 146th 

St and Olio Rd

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

448.00 469.00 2.00 6.00 16.00 97.00 111.00 553.00 596.00 1.07560780122896
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 73 of 86

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

IR 1001, Various 

signs in Hamilton 

County

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

16556.00 19427.00 49.00 39.00 238.00 614.00 2825.00 2622.00 19668.00 22702.00 1.07354685646501

IR 1001, Sign 

Replacement in Noble 

County

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

3439.00 3344.00 16.00 17.00 93.00 138.00 414.00 468.00 3962.00 3967.00 0.840645088530506

US 40, 2.50 miles E of 

SR 1 at 

Pennville/Jacksonburg 

Road

Major Collector Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

6.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 9.00 9.00 2.2

SR 5, On SR 5 at CR 

450 N, 1.51 miles S of 

SR 120

Major Collector Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

12.00 3.00 1.00 13.00 3.00 5.37662337662338

US 24, At US 421 and 

CR 300E

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

49.00 51.00 3.00 2.00 14.00 6.00 63.00 62.00 0.722981177899211

US 24, At White CR 

300 E

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

40.00 38.00 3.00 2.00 14.00 4.00 54.00 47.00 0.598566308243728

ST 1006, Intersection 

of Section Street and 

Washington Street in 

Sullivan

Minor Collector Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

8.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 6.00 1.375

ST 1014, 2 advanced 

warning flashers at 

Bright Elementary 

School

Minor Arterial Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

5.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 13.00 0.351108448172558

IR 1010, 2 advanced 

warning flashers at 

North Dearborn 

Elementary School

Urban 

Unassigned

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

0

IR 1015, Advanced 

warning flasher at 

Sunman Dearborn 

Intermediate School

Minor Collector Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

0

VA VARI, Sign 

Replacements at 

various locations in 

Town of Waterloo

Multiple District Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

369.00 342.00 6.00 3.00 10.00 25.00 61.00 54.00 446.00 424.00 0.770466218885816

US 27, US 27 SB 

curves at Elizabeth St 

& at Westbrook Dr, 

1.91 & 1.28 mi S of 

SR 930

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 80.00 49.00 1.00 2.00 19.00 6.00 100.00 57.00 1.69230769230769

SR 45, At Liberty 

Dr/Hickory Leaf Dr

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

29.00 33.00 6.00 16.00 7.00 45.00 46.00 0.793794122475784

VA VARI, Various 

local roads in Greene 

County

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

2245.00 2315.00 18.00 16.00 44.00 139.00 342.00 254.00 2649.00 2724.00 0.597736382928555

SR 46, At County Line 

Rd, approx 4 miles E 

of US 231

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

6.00 10.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 4
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 74 of 86

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

IR 1001, Multiple 

locations in Clinton 

County

Local Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

355.00 223.00 3.00 2.00 15.00 14.00 50.00 39.00 423.00 278.00 1.25866666666667

SR 61, 4.7 miles N of 

N jct SR 241

Major Collector Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

6.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 4

ST 1001, US 30 

Frontage Roads from 

SR 55 to Merrillville 

Road (Phase II)

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Roadway Roadway - other 304.00 248.00 1.00 3.00 18.00 74.00 51.00 381.00 318.00 0.79372197309417

ST 1001, Lake 

Avenue from Anthony 

Blvd to Stanley Ave

Minor Arterial Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

90.00 133.00 1.00 3.00 43.00 19.00 134.00 155.00 1.05020920502092

ST 1001, Sign 

Replacements at 

various locations in 

City of Angola

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

2388.00 2720.00 6.00 6.00 37.00 62.00 226.00 237.00 2657.00 3025.00 0.808676258363581

ST 1001, Sign 

Replacements at 

various locations in 

Gas City

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

591.00 604.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 86.00 71.00 678.00 691.00 0.651492902594224

ST 1001, Sign 

Replacements at 

various locations in 

City of Decatur

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1227.00 1297.00 6.00 5.00 14.00 45.00 157.00 150.00 1404.00 1497.00 0.689526458318085

ST 1001, Olio Road, 

Crosswalk and HAWK 

System

Major Collector Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at intersection

21.00 25.00 2.00 2.00 23.00 27.00 0.919431279620853

SR 144, At Kitchen 

Road, 3.2 miles E of 

SR 67

Minor Arterial Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

17.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 3.00 29.00 16.00 1.58823529411765

VA VARI, Various

locations for the Town 

of Avon

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

416.00 364.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 21.00 57.00 38.00 480.00 424.00 1.38888888888889

ST 1001, Push button 

pedestrian signals at 

various locations on 

42nd, 46th & 49th Sts.

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at non-intersection location

19.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 6.00 27.00 23.00 1.15584415584416

IR 1001, Various local 

roads within Orange 

County

Minor Arterial Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

91.00 116.00 3.00 3.00 25.00 20.00 119.00 139.00 0.947368421052632

ST 1001, Woodland 

Ave at Barker Rd

Minor Arterial Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

31.00 10.00 3.00 34.00 10.00 3.88888888888889

IR 1001, Various 

locations on Warren 

county roads

Minor Collector Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

34.00 42.00 2.00 6.00 13.00 5.00 49.00 53.00 1.02564102564103

IR 1001, Various 

locations on county 

roads

Minor Collector Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

147.00 164.00 3.00 1.00 13.00 12.00 54.00 22.00 217.00 199.00 1.35245901639344

IR 1001, North 9th 

Street at Burnetts Rd.

Local Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

17.00 11.00 5.00 4.00 22.00 15.00 1.45833333333333
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 75 of 86

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

ST 1001, Various 

Locations In City of 

New Castle

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

184.00 176.00 1.00 6.00 15.00 52.00 38.00 242.00 230.00 0.964488636363636

IR 1001, Sign 

Replacement at 

various locations in 

Cass County

Multiple District Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

461.00 366.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 40.00 144.00 124.00 618.00 534.00 1.03666245259166

IR 1001, Sign 

Replacement at 

various locations in 

Carroll County

Multiple District Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

137.00 114.00 1.00 4.00 7.00 8.00 31.00 27.00 176.00 153.00 1.08264462809917

US 40, At CR 500W 

(Gem Rd), 6.8 miles 

W of SR 9

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

28.00 26.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 36.00 33.00 1.08843537414966

IR 1001, Various 

Locations in City of 

Richmond

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

450.00 572.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 42.00 151.00 86.00 609.00 702.00 0.967117988394584

ST 1003, CR 150 S & 

Dan Jones Road, 

Traffic Signal 

Modernization In the 

Town of Avon

Minor Collector Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.172413793103448

IR 1001, Sign 

Replacements in 

Elkhart County

Multiple District Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1903.00 2132.00 14.00 13.00 36.00 138.00 392.00 369.00 2345.00 2652.00 0.857436549172055

IR 1001, Sign 

Inventory, Various 

Locations in Lawrence 

County

Minor Collector Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

411.00 422.00 3.00 2.00 13.00 34.00 127.00 82.00 554.00 540.00 1.07547169811321

SR 135, 1.52 miles S 

of US 31 (Edgewood 

Avenue)

Minor Arterial Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

19.00 18.00 1.00 9.00 4.00 28.00 23.00 1.25

IR 1001, Update 

regulatory, warning & 

guide signs to meet 

MUTCD requirements

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

2.00 2.00 4.00 1

SR 56, .8 miles E of 

Thuermer Hollow 

Road

Local Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 28.00 18.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 32.00 21.00 0.666666666666667

US 50, At George 

Street

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

16.00 28.00 4.00 2.00 20.00 30.00 0.88

US 50, George Street 

at CSX and US 50

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Protective devices 16.00 28.00 4.00 2.00 20.00 30.00 0.88

VA VARI, Various 

systematic sign 

replacements on 

Johnson County 

Roads

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

914.00 904.00 4.00 21.00 31.00 233.00 231.00 1172.00 1166.00 1.00809388911372

VA 1019, Various 

Systematic Sign 

Replacements

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

4.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 15.00 12.00 27.00 30.00 0.714723926380368
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 76 of 86

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

VA VARI, Various 

locations in Pike 

County

Minor Collector Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

64.00 34.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 26.00 10.00 93.00 49.00 1.81111111111111

IR 1001, 

Programmatic Sign 

Improvement in 

Benton County

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

52.00 50.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 15.00 16.00 71.00 70.00 1

US 52, CR 700 W Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

13.00 20.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 18.00 24.00 0.702898550724638

US 52, CR 700 W Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

13.00 20.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 18.00 24.00 0.690884476534296

ST 1001, Sign 

Inventory in Bluffton

Multiple District Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

183.00 175.00 1.00 8.00 22.00 32.00 35.00 223.00 233.00 0.841353744765566

IR 1001, 410 aging 

warning signs located 

at var. locations 

throughout 

Tippecanoe County

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

12.00 10.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 7.00 15.00 13.00 35.00 32.00 1.0411438576014

SR 61, 0.70 mi N of N 

jct SR 241

Minor Collector Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

15.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 25.00 8.00 1.90909090909091

SR 8, From 1.05 miles 

E of I-69 to 2.32 miles 

E of I-69 in Auburn. 

See logs.

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

30.00 43.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 6.00 38.00 52.00 0.575418994413408

ST 1071, 206th St. at 

Overdorf Rd. 

intersection, 0.97 mi. 

W. of 206th/SR 37 

intersection

Major Collector Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

1.00 1.00 1

SR 38, signals at 12th 

in New Castle

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.36363636363636

SR 38, Signals in New 

Castle SR 38 at 11th, 

14th, 15th & 25th - SR 

3 at Riley Rd

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

22.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 32.00 7.00 3.86666666666667

SR 47, 5.65 mi S of 

SR 32 to SR 32

Minor Arterial Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

52.00 53.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 9.00 22.00 18.00 81.00 81.00 0.832699619771863

SR 47, US 52 to US 

421

Major Collector Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

97.00 14.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 23.00 124.00 15.00 3.84507042253521

US 136, SR 39 to 0.13 

Mile West of SR 267

Minor Arterial Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

223.00 236.00 2.00 6.00 25.00 62.00 46.00 291.00 309.00 0.485668789808917

SR 3, From Smith 

Street to US 50

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

8.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 2.00 11

SR 64, At SR 162 Major Collector Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

17.00 33.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 21.00 45.00 0.245901639344262

US 150, At Cross 

Street

Major Collector Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 0.375
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 77 of 86

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

VA VARI, Sign 

inventory, multiple 

locations in Lebanon

Local Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

2480.00 2430.00 12.00 14.00 29.00 157.00 347.00 164.00 2868.00 2765.00 1.03515015600624

ST 1001, Various city 

streets in Bicknell

Minor Collector Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

244.00 217.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 10.00 62.00 17.00 311.00 245.00 1.44806517311609

ST 1001, Sign 

Replacements at 

various locations in 

City of Auburn

Multiple District Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1525.00 1724.00 6.00 5.00 19.00 108.00 191.00 121.00 1741.00 1958.00 0.648415657036347

VA 1012, Various 

locations within the 

City of Madison

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1821.00 2142.00 15.00 12.00 41.00 168.00 316.00 212.00 2193.00 2534.00 0.86628093860495

ST 1009, Various 

locations within the 

City of Batesville

n/a Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

261.00 320.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 22.00 39.00 18.00 304.00 363.00 0.844578313253012

US 31, Kern Road 

and Old US 31

Other Principal 

Arterial(OPA)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

23.00 32.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 27.00 35.00 0.53405572755418

ST 1007, Sign 

inventory for the Town 

of Gosport

Local Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

123.00 128.00 1.00 4.00 14.00 25.00 6.00 152.00 149.00 1.04714226115978

VA 0037, Various 

locations throughout 

the Town of Battle 

Ground

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

27.00 38.00 1.00 12.00 11.00 40.00 49.00 0.0692355244178858

ST 1030, 7th Street 

(IR311) & Davis Dr. 

(IR158) in Terre Haute

Local Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

23.00 36.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 4.00 31.00 43.00 0.793706293706294

IR 1019, Roundabout 

construction at the 

intersection of CR 

625E and CR 150S.

Major Collector Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

8.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 10.00 5.00 2.4

US 41, 0.89 mile S of 

I-64 at Rusher Road

Other Principal 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

21.00 19.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 3.00 29.00 23.00 1.49519230769231

SR 56, At Judiciary 

Street

Minor Arterial Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

7.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 12.00 0.861990950226244

SR 56, At 

Main/George Street

Minor Arterial Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

11.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 15.00 0.391003460207612

I 69, I-69 at SR 38 

interchanges NB and 

SB ramps

Interstate Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

10.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 13.00 8.00 0.00444444444444444

ST 1001, Citywide. 

The attached 

application lists all of 

the signs that will be 

replaced

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

4244.00 4229.00 8.00 4.00 32.00 40.00 684.00 708.00 4968.00 4981.00 0.983391580568977

ST 1001, Pedestrian 

Crossings in Center 

and Washington 

Townships

N/A Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.2
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 78 of 86

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

SR 332, 5.38 miles E 

of I-69 at CR 400W 

(Nebo Road)

Other Principal 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

36.00 38.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 41.00 45.00 0.779411764705882

IR 1001, Edison Road 

and Gordon Drive, 

designated center turn 

lane

Other Principal 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

23.00 27.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 31.00 29.00 1.01401869158879

VA 1032, Upgrade 

regulatory, warning & 

guide signs to meet 

MUTCD requirements

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

3921.00 4063.00 10.00 10.00 79.00 310.00 962.00 602.00 4972.00 4985.00 0.672337337740869

IR 1001, Upgrade 

regulatory, warning & 

guide signs to meet 

MUTCD requirements

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

164.00 164.00 8.00 24.00 29.00 15.00 201.00 203.00 0.76734693877551

ST 1001, St. sign 

inventory & St. sign 

replacement in the 

City of Franklin

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1036.00 1207.00 1.00 2.00 24.00 63.00 158.00 100.00 1219.00 1372.00 0.71841155234657

ST 1001, Intersection 

of 111th ST & 

Pennsylvania ST, 

Carmel IN

Local Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

12.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 2.00 28.00 12.00 4.1

US 36, US 36 at SR 

234

Other Principal 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

6.00 10.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 12.00 0.763888888888889

US 150, At 

Edwardsville/Galena 

Road (Pectol Road)in 

Galena

Minor Arterial Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

9.00 16.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 11.00 19.00 0.235955056179775

VA VARI, Various 

locations in the city of 

Attica in Fountain 

County

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

213.00 215.00 1.00 12.00 27.00 15.00 240.00 243.00 0.859164897381458

SR 26, at US 31 WB 

approach 76+27

Other Principal 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

14.00 25.00 6.00 2.00 20.00 27.00 0.445205479452055

IR 1001, Sign 

Inventory, Various 

Locations in Knox 

County

N/A Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

250.00 193.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 22.00 64.00 29.00 322.00 246.00 0.908154121863799

ST 1001, 2.25 miles 

from I-465 on 16th 

Street

Other Principal 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

12.00 35.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 15.00 38.00 2

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?
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 79 of 86

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. 

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 2017. 

The incidence of severe injury crashes in most of the monitored emphasis areas increased in calendar years 2015 and 2016, however, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased by 1.20% from 2015 to 2016. The 

resulting rate of crashes with fatality per million vehicle miles of travel increased by 0.01%, while the rate of serious crashes involving probably class A injury outcomes decreased by 0.04%. In response to these trends 

INDOT has increased the number and variety of systemic safety programs applicable to both state and local roads.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 80 of 86

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.

Anticipate adoption of the next SHSP revision on or before March 1 2021.

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
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 81 of 86

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

Access Control (22) 100 0

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
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 82 of 86

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 Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0

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

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

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. 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 83 of 86

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 in calendar year 

2018.

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.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting 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” 
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 84 of 86

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

INDOT asks that FHWA accept Indiana’s described reporting methodology as part of any review of Indiana Crash data and Performance Target Setting methodology

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

In the fall of 2016, a peer-program assessment of Indiana’s HSIP was initiated. FHWA engineers from the Headquarters’ Office of Safety and three peer states 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

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.
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 85 of 86

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Rumble Stripe Before After Study Final 11-15-2016.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 86 of 86

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.