Indiana

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: IN
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 8

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 36

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 36

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 40

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 56

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 56

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 73

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................76

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 79

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 84

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 90

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 97

Glossary..................................................................................................................................................... 110
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

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) 2015. The content of this report combines information regarding the implementation 

status of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and associated sub-programs 

including the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). This combined HSIP report, does not 

include the annual rail-highway crossing safety report as required under 23 U.S.C. § 130(g). 

INDOT is exercising the option provided to the states by 23 U.S.C. § 148 guidance, of preparing 

and submitting to FHWA separate reports.

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

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

program and associated safety spending in Indiana for FFY 2015, beginning October 1, 2014 

and ending on September 31, 2015. 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 2014, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased by 2.57% above the 2013 estimate, to 

reach 81,406 Hundred Million Vehicle Miles of Travel (HMVMT). The number of fatal injuries 

rose from 743 in 2014 to 753 in 2015, or 1.3%. As a result of the VMT increase, the Annual 

Fatality Rate dropped from 0.94 fatalities per HMVMT in 2013 to 0.92 in 2014. The 5-year rolling 

average rate of fatalities rose slightly from 0.93 to 0.94 per HMVMT. 2014 compared to a rate of 

0.97 in 2013. The rise is attributed to the fact that the 5 year average for 2013 included 

data from 2009 that was a historically low rate of 0.89.

While this report also indicates an increase in serious injury crashes, 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 

26. A new uniform method has been developed for declaring an injury to be “Incapacitating”; 

the definition used by Indiana to classify injury severity as an “A” severity on the KABCO scale, 

for crash events and casualties.

The new classification method was developed 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.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

The revised electronic reporting tool now 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. This change removes the subjective element from the 

determination of class “A” injury severity.

The Indiana TRCC made the decision to change the methodology in order to achieve more 

consistent, reliable data over the long term. The TRCC accepts the fact that over the next few 

years, the frequency and rate of serious injury data would appear to be distorted when 

compared to the data from past years.

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

change in the method of injury severity classification. To date, the apparent effect of this 

change has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that are classified as class 

“A” (incapacitating) injuries. It is expected that this trend will continue as full data for calendar 

2015 is added to the records system. Also expected is a continuing effect on calculation of 5 

year average data for serious injury (level A) crash frequency, casualty counts and resulting rate 

(per HMVMT). Offsetting reductions are expected in crash events and casualties classified at 

lower severity. We ask that FHWA consider this change in reporting methodology as part of any 

review of Indiana Crash data.

In FFY 2015, the total expected obligation of federal program funds for safety, from all programs 

will be about $47.8 million dollars. All projects approved for funding in HSIP or HRRRP 

programs are required to address at least one of the emphasis areas defined in the Indiana 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

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

including those funded with HSIP and HRRRP funds utilize the INDOT asset management

process. The submission of the documents that describe INDOT’s countermeasure selection 

methodology originally took place in September of 2008 with the submission of the FFY 2008 

HSIP/HRRRP report. 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, 

describes the selection methodology for local HSIP projects. INDOT is currently engaged in 

revising the Indiana’s SHSP and will subsequently revise the HSIP Local Project Selection 

Guidance. 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

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 area) group 3 (incorporated cities and towns) and rural Group 4 (counties and un-
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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 utilized 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. The document are also posted on the INDOT web site at: 

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/LocalHSIPProjectSelectionGuidance.pdf

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

Assistance Program (LTAP), in regard to selection of HSIP and HRRRP projects. INDOT’s 

guidance to LPAs advocates the value of low cost systemic safety improvements to proactively 

address the risk of severe crashes on their entire roadway system, along with the treatment of 

locations with high risk of frequent severe crashes involving fatality or incapacitating (Class A) 

injury. Systemic projects are gaining increasing acceptance by LPAs. Notably, many 

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

upgrade the retro-reflectivity of local regulatory and warning signs. 

In urban areas, the MPOs serving 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) 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 needs in regard to severe crash reduction.

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 are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Local Agency Assistance Divison and Budget & Project Accounting Division

Other: Other-Capital Asset Management

Briefly 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 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 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

development of the construction project. 

In addition, OTS consults with Design Division regarding new safety improvement design 

practices and the Office of Traffic Engineering 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 Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Local Technical Assistance Program

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Project administration and funding approval resides with Division of Local Public 

Agencies and Grants Administration.

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

would like to elaborate.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

In response to the increased HSIP apportionments under MAP-21, 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 selection and funding prioritization. Rural group 3 and group 4 LPAs first 

submit their proposed projects to the LTAP HELPERS Program for compliance review, prior to 

INDOT determination of eligibility for HSIP or HRRRP funding.

INDOT determines eligibility in accordance with the emphasis area defined in the Indiana SHSP 

and 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 year for, scheduling of plan development and construction contract letting.

Once a project is placed in Active status on the INDOT scheduling 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 in order to 

bring the project to a construction contract letting.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Centerline and 

Edgeline Rumble Stripes 

Other: Other-Traffic Signal 

Visibility Improvement
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted ranking factors 

including safety need, roadway 

geometry and cost effectivness

50

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-roadway conditions 

and sight distance

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

12

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

13

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors addressing 

safety need, intersection 

geometry and cost effectivness

50

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted Factors including 

safety need, roadway geometry 

and cost effectivness

50

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

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

16

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

17

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors based on 

safety need and cost effectivness

50

Program: Crash Data
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors based on 

safety need and cost effectivness

50

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Geometric Features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Retroreflectivity of Existing Signs

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 100

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Geometric Features, 

marking and signs

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

25

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

State Roads are not addressed in this SubProgram

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted scoring based on 

safety need and cost effectivness

50

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Geometrics features 

and land use

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors using safety 

need and cost effectivness

50
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Program: Other-Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Stripes 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Paved Shoulder Width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors using safety 

need and cost effectivness

50

Program: Other-Traffic Signal Visibility Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors using safety 

need and cost effectivness

50

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

54

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-There have been no changes in program methodology since the FFY 2014 reporting 

period.

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

would like to elaborate. 

INDOT is seeking 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 system wide analysis to identify both individual locations with high potential 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

for severe crashes or wide spread needs for systemic improvements. Also, projects may be 

programmed as a result of identification by other means such as public complaints filtered 

through one of the INDOT district offices.

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

review process similar to a road safety assessment (RSA), in order to identify safety needs and 

appropriate countermeasures. The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) conducts these 

reviews with support of the INDOT district offices.

The process used to program traffic safety projects on INDOT system roads requires 

selection and prioritization by state fiscal year. Traffic Safety Asset Management 

(TSAM) Team produces a proposed list of safety improvement projects for programming 

in each fiscal year. A uniform scoring procedure is utilized to provide proposed projects 

with weighted scores that utilize the history of crashes and their severity, traffic volume 

and road inventory data to a uniform set of criteria in order to assess the relative 

intensity of safety needs. The process also considers the cost effectiveness of the 

proposed solution and other factors to generate a weighted score that encompasses the 

relative need and effectiveness of a proposed safety improvement project. The TSAM 

team then reviews and deliberates the relative priority of each proposed project and 

assigns a priority grade for targeted fiscal year of construction. An Executive Finance 

Committee later considers the proposed projects and then ratifies the safety program for 

the target construction year. 

In regard to candidate projects on the local road system, OTS makes all eligibility 

determinations for HSIP and HRRRP funding. The necessary information to determine 

eligibility for HSIP/HRRRP funding typically consists of a Road Safety Assessment 

(RSA) report. An exception is the submission of eligibility information for certain 

approved systemic project types that may be provided via an INDOT approved form.

Projects located in metropolitan planning areas must first be selected by the relevant 

MPO prior to eligibility review by INDOT. Rural Local Public Agencies (LPAs) are asked 

to first work with the LTAP HELPERS Program that acts to advise the LPA and to prescreen applications for compliance with federal and state regulations. The HELPERS 

Program often provides valuable advice to the LPAs regarding best practices for traffic 

safety and facilitates the conduct of appropriate RSA procedures. 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 36749450.28 79 % 21396622.76 45 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 94016.21 0 %

HRRR Special Rule 9360964.12 20 % 7091075.06 15 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

0 0 % 17846130.77 38 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

316964 1 % 1037100 2 %

State and Local Funds
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Totals 46427378.4 100% 47464944.8 100%

Obligated program totals includes planned transfers from Advance Construction to the HSIP, 

HRRRP and 164-HE programs before October 1, 2015.

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

$11,822,848.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$11,074,546.00

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

$219,600.00

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

$219,600.00

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

period?

0 %

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

period? 

50 %

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

overcome this in the future.

MAP-21 makes it clear that cost effectiveness is to be considered in project selection decisions, 

and it’s recognized that this may become a future requirement for most federal aid funding 

decisions. However, guidance under MAP-21 is currently unclear as to how the risk of future 

crashes 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 a useful 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.

The High Risk Rural Roads Program is ineffective and should be abandoned. It’s far more likely 

that HSIP funds are used 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 local 

agencies typically consider when developing or prioritizing proposed safety improvements, 

therefore projects submitted for eligibility often do not qualify for this funding program. In 

addition, many local roads lack accurate volume or inventory data, making a comparison of 

crash rate averages a difficult task. Analysis of current severe crash trends has not indicated a 

difference that can be directly attributed to functional class. Improved response to risk factors 

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

percentage of their HSIP apportionments to construction safety improvements on rural roads 

medium to low volume roads found to have a higher than nominal severe crash frequency or 

rate regardless of functional class. 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

At a minimum state DOT’s should be permitted to conduct the calculation of all current special 

rule requirements. State DOTs are more familiar with current status of roadway functional class 

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. NHTSAs functional 

class definitions do not match FHWA. Finally, urban/rural boundaries often change and are not 

always consistent with current land use patterns.

In regard to rural road safety, INDOT plans to engage with LTAP and interested LPA 

agencies to look for improved data analysis and project selection methods to address 

severe crash risk on mid to high speed rural local roads. In addition we are hopeful that 

new guidance regarding the application of crash risk will result in new methodologies to 

address cost effectiveness analysis and allow for more flexibility regarding 

determination of project eligibility when spot improvements are needed.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

INDOT has developed an Asset Management system to address the need for 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.

The primary program goal for the Traffic Safety Asset Class is the reduction in the 

frequency of severe (fatal and incapacitating injury) crashes either by reducing the 

occurrence of these crashes or their relative severity. Current available analysis tools 

are designed to consider all injury crashes to be serious so fatal and injury crashes are 

used for prioritization of countermeasure proposals. For most crash 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. Unfortunately, most rural local roads lack 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 determine 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.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

129629

7

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

12 

Numb

ers

195125.9

3

197704.5

6

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

traffic 

control

12963

37

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

20 

Numb

ers

121736.2

6

121736.2

6

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Install 

signal

12975

64

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

230 

Numb

ers

65992.63 73325.15 HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

81015

9

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

24151 

Numb

ers

154832.6

6

154832.6

6

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

200

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Guidance 

with 

RPM's
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

12962

67

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

27 

Numb

ers

383651.3

4

383651.3

4

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

150

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal 

visibility

10067

76

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

2.15 

Miles

765529.8

5

951470.3

2

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Major 

Collector

318

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

HMA 

Overlay

14002

12

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

235 

Numb

ers

54360 68912.45 HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

14012

31

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

7.86 

Miles

951090.9

5

1188863.

7

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Major 

Collector

831 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

HMA 

Overlay

14013

08

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

10.46 

Miles

1613668.

19

2022285.

25

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Major 

Collector

113

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

HMA 

Overlay

10066

45

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

7.72 

Miles

3615026.

14

3696326.

14

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

175

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

HMA 

Overlay

12975

41

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes -

miscellaneous/other/uns

1 

Numb

ers

999736.1 1473113.

88

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Major 

Collector

500

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometric

s and 

install 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

pecified traffic 

signal

10075

3

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

ers

2365229.

92

2365229.

92

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

164

51

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Bridge 

deck 

replacem

ent

Increase 

pvmt 

friction

12962

96

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

60 

Numb

ers

1036877.

14

1037072.

14

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

300

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal 

visibility

12963

34

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation -

other

6.35 

Miles

97204.31 97204.31 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

447

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install CL 

rumble 

stripes 

and 

improve 

sign 

visibility

12963

36

Miscellaneous 36 

Numb

ers

530995.8

5

530995.8

5

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

pavement 

markings 

and 

improve 

sign 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

n 164 visibility

14005

82

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

22740 

Numb

ers

118868.4

4

118868.4

4

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Guidance 

with 

RPM's

20132

0

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.45 

Miles

2298864.

02

2358222.

85

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

185

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Curve 

Correction

14010

96

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and bicyclists

1 

Numb

ers

9600 12000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Planning

12962

68

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

flashers - modify existing

18 

Numb

ers

185603.8

6

185603.8

6

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

flashing 

beacon 

display 

and 

improve 

sign and 

marking 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

visibility

81011

8

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

60771 

Numb

ers

542288.0

6

542288.0

6

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Guidance 

with 

RPM's

12962

60

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

53 

Numb

ers

1078193.

54

1083193.

54

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

300

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal 

visibility

11734

14

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

25597 

Numb

ers

175630.5

9

175630.5

9

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Guidance 

with 

RPM's

90170

2

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

13.06 

Miles

5112551.

61

5452351.

61

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Major 

Collector

774 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Increase 

pvmt 

friction
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

11734

09

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

3 

Numb

ers

461609.5

2

461609.5

2

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal 

visibility

11734

10

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

21625 

Numb

ers

194627.7

7

194627.7

7

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Guidance 

with 

RPM's

11736

73

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

30 

Numb

ers

237897.7

3

237897.7

3

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

13826

88

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

1 

Numb

ers

8798.17 82315.53 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

13826

89

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signal1 

Numb

79705.96 79705.96 Penalt

y 

Transf

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

controlled ers er –

Sectio

n 164

Other Agency visibility

13826

90

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

1 

Numb

ers

163481.6

6

163481.6

6

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

13826

91

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

1 

Numb

ers

80761.56 80761.56 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

13826

92

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

1 

Numb

ers

76478.26 76478.26 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

13826

93

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

1 

Numb

ers

80545.11 80545.11 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

n 164

14011

66

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5.01 

Miles

150640.2

1

150640.2

1

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

100

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install CL 

rumble 

stripes 

and 

improve 

sign 

visibility

14011

72

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

7 

Numb

ers

200256.9

6

200256.9

6

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

250

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

positive 

guidance

14011

74

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

1 

Numb

ers

69017.6 69017.6 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

250

00

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

positive 

guidance

11721

82

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

10 

Numb

ers

1242406.

74

1243988.

74

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

200

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

14007

18

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

ers

210000 210000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Planning -

SNIP 2 

Developm

ent
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

10044

5

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.8 

Miles

2768240.

36

5618286.

77

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

189

69

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

intersectio

n 

approach

60063

0

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.5 

Miles

1911372.

13

2091797.

13

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

120

50

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

intersectio

n 

approach

11734

39

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

21137 

Numb

ers

288099.6

3

288099.6

3

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

850

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Guidance 

with 

RPM's

12968

77

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

28 

Numb

ers

410843.2 412343.2 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

100

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

12969

21

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation -

other

9.19 

Miles

240916.0

6

240916.0

6

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

755

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

rumble 

stripes

12969

34

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation -

other

10.22 

Miles

177106.3

8

177106.3

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

590

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

rumble 

stripes

14010

12

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

9919 

Numb

226148.8

8

246148.8

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

250

00

70 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Guidance 

with 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

ers n 148) Interstate Agency RPM's

10061

18

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

12 

Numb

ers

298146.4 299146.4 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

205

90

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

12969

12

Roadside Barrier - cable 13.9 

Miles

1430851.

49

1493707.

72

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

250

00

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

Cable 

Barrier 

15002

55

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

existing left-turn lane

1.83 

Miles

2437793.

22

2654733.

22

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

547

9

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

intersectio

n 

approach

13832

53

Roadside Barrier - other 0.78 

Miles

231316.2 231316.2 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

850

0

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

wood 

guard rail

12975

67

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

79 

Numb

ers

342674.5

5

380749.5 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

850

0

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

ped 

crossing 

signals
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Agency

12975

68

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

26 

Numb

ers

103992.3

3

115547.0

3

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

850

0

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

ped 

crossing 

signals

13830

68

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

331 

Numb

ers

100351.6 108834.5

4

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

850

0

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

13829

38

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

1000 

Numb

ers

155790 173100 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Sign 

Inventory

Sign 

inventory 

11734

67

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

916 

Numb

ers

304076.4

8

337862.7

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

14008

69

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

500 

Numb

ers

20250 22500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Sign 

Inventory

Sign 

inventory 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Agency

13831

59

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian warning signs -

add/modify flashers

166 

Numb

ers

743531.1

4

826855.7

2

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

850

0

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Install ped 

crossing 

signals

10060

95

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.11 

Miles

42231.3 42843.3 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Major 

Collector

850

0

50 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

guard rail

11730

81

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0.16 

Miles

744315.6

9

827017.4

3

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

intersectio

n 

approach

11732

87

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.2 

Miles

379031.9

8

387781.9

9

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Major 

Collector

100

00

40 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Install a 

roundabo

ut

13833

10

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

1962 

Numb

205720.5

7

228578.4

2

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

upgrade or replacement ers n 148) Street Highway 

Agency

visibility

13831

88

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

3139 

Numb

ers

641670.2

7

666955.8

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

100

00

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

14010

36

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

25 

Numb

ers

93384.48 93384.48 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expresswa

ys

200

00

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

10060

26

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

367 

Numb

ers

123148.7

5

136831.9

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

11732

10

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

6 

Numb

ers

399877.0

1

444307.7

9

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

100

00

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

13830

61

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

250 

Numb

130253.4

8

180529.7

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

850

0

50 County 

Highway 

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

upgrade or replacement ers n 148) Street Agency visibility

13830

87

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.19 

Miles

1341118.

04

1564512.

04

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

150

00

45 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Install a 

roundabo

ut

13831

03

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

269 

Numb

ers

75099.76 83444.18 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

13832

52

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

424 

Numb

ers

1436773.

24

1606414.

71

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

100

00

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

ped 

crossing 

signals

13832

56

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

5 

Numb

ers

171609.3

5

190677.0

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

250

00

35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

ped 

crossing 

signals

13836

74

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

1504 

Numb

ers

272119.4

5

302354.9

4

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Agency

14004

53

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

322 

Numb

ers

2499483.

47

2777203.

85

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

150

00

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal and 

sign 

visibility

14005

80

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian warning signs -

add/modify flashers

85 

Numb

ers

1046817.

6

1055824.

27

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

150

00

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Install ped 

crossing 

signals

14009

70

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian warning signs -

add/modify flashers

194 

Numb

ers

145173.1

9

161303.5

4

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Install ped 

crossing 

signals

11733

96

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

753 

Numb

ers

183150 203504 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility

11720

53

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

415 

Numb

ers

81000 96000.01 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

850

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Upgrade 

signing

Improve 

sign 

visibility
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Agency

13832

54

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

7 

Numb

ers

319964.0

9

319964.0

9

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

150

00

40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Upgrade 

Guardrail 

End 

Treatment

s

06007

05

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0.19 

Miles

1101894.

78

1201317 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

150

00

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

Intersectio

n 

approach
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 813 783 759 751 735

Number of serious injuries 3190 3086 3098 3086 3609

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.12 1.06 1.01 0.97 0.94

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.32 4.12 4.05 3.99 4.59

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

In October of 2015 a new version of the Electronic Crash Reporting Tool used by officers was 

deployed to law enforcement agencies across the State of Indiana. The new version of the 

crash reporting tool changed the parameters for determination of injuries as class “A” severity 

on the KABCO scale. A new uniform method has been developed for declaring an injury to be 

“Incapacitating”; the definition used by Indiana to classify injury severity “A” for crash events and 

casualties. The new classification method was developed 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 had been inconsistently 

applied. Inconsistency 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.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Previously, officers were asked to use subjective judgment to decide if injuries would be 

classified as incapacitating. The revised electronic reporting tool now 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. This change removes the 

subjective element from the determination of class “A” injury severity.

The Indiana TRCC made the change in order to achieve more consistent, reliable data over the 

long term. The TRCC accepts the fact that over the next few years, the frequency and rate of 

serious injury data would appear to be distorted when compared to the data from past years.

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

change in the method of injury severity classification. To date, the apparent effect of this 

change has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that are classified as class 

“A” (incapacitating) injuries. It is expected that this trend will continue as full data for calendar 

2015 is added to the records system. Also expected is a continuing effect on calculation of 5 

year average data for serious injury (level A) crash frequency, casualty counts and resulting rate 

(per HMVMT). Offsetting reductions are expected in crash events and casualties classified at 

lower severity. We ask that FHWA consider this change in reporting methodology as part of any 

review of Indiana Crash data.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

48 174 0.61 2.22

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

71 265 1.6 5.95

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

78 314 2.16 8.69

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

31 143 1.46 6.73

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

134 499 2.1 7.81

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

72 337 1.45 6.81

URBAN PRINCIPAL 49 254 0.49 2.54
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

13 65 0.98 4.88

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

124 1018 1.14 9.36

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

90 757 1.03 8.64

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

44 335 0.9 6.89

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

41 267 0.31 2.03
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 393 1425 1.02 3.69

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 211 798 1.04 3.94

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 145 1150 0.78 6.15

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 2 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 6 34 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

In October of 2015 a new version of the Electronic Crash Reporting Tool used by officers was deployed to law enforcement agencies 

across the State of Indiana. The new version of the crash reporting tool changed the parameters for determination of injuries as 

class “A” severity on the KABCO scale. A new uniform method has been developed for declaring an injury to be “Incapacitating”; the 

definition used by Indiana to classify injury severity “A” for crash events and casualties. The new classification method was 

developed 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 had been inconsistently applied. Inconsistency 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.

Previously, officers were asked to use subjective judgment to decide if injuries would be classified as incapacitating. The revised 

electronic reporting tool now 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. This change removes the subjective element from the 

determination of class “A” injury severity.

The Indiana TRCC made the change in order to achieve more consistent, reliable data over the long term. The TRCC accepts the 

fact that over the next few years, the frequency and rate of serious injury data would appear to be distorted when compared to the 

data from past years.

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

classification. To date, the apparent effect of this change has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that are 

classified as class “A” (incapacitating) injuries. It is expected that this trend will continue as data for calendar 2015 and beyond is 

added to the crash records system. Also expected is a continuing effect on calculation of 5 year average data for serious injury (level 

A) crash frequency, casualty counts and resulting rate (per HMVMT). Offsetting reductions are expected in crash events and 

casualties classified at lower severity. We ask that FHWA consider this change in reporting methodology as part of any review of 

Indiana Crash data.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

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

In 2014, the early estimate of vehicle miles of travel increased by 2.57% above 2013. The 

number of police reported fatalities increased by 1.3%. All injury crashes increased by 2.9%. 

Reported incapacitating (severe) injury crashes increased by 51.3%, but the large increase is 

primarily the result of a change in the method used to classify the severity of casualties as Class 

“A” (incapacitating) injury. The new injury classification methodology will be described below. 

In October of 2015 a new version of the Electronic Crash Reporting Tool used by officers was 

deployed to law enforcement agencies across the State of Indiana. The new version of the 

crash reporting tool changed the parameters for determination of injuries as class “A” severity 

on the KABCO scale. A new uniform method has been developed for declaring an injury to be 

“Incapacitating”; the definition used by Indiana to classify injury severity “A” for crash events and 

casualties. The new classification method was developed 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 had been inconsistently 

applied. Inconsistency 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.

Previously, officers were asked to use subjective judgment to decide if injuries would be 

classified as incapacitating. The revised electronic reporting tool now 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. This change removes the 

subjective element from the determination of class “A” injury severity.

The Indiana TRCC made the change in order to achieve more consistent, reliable data over the 

long term. The TRCC accepts the fact that over the next few years, the frequency and rate of 

serious injury data would appear to be distorted when compared to the data from past years.

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

change in the method of injury severity classification. To date, the apparent effect of this 

change has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that are classified as class 

“A” (incapacitating) injuries. It is expected that this trend will continue as full data for calendar 

2015 is added to the records system. Also expected is a continuing effect on calculation of 5 

year average data for serious injury (level A) crash frequency, casualty counts and resulting rate 

(per HMVMT). Offsetting reductions are expected in crash events and casualties classified at 

lower severity. We ask that FHWA consider this change in reporting methodology as part of any 

review of Indiana Crash data.

Statewide 2014 crash data shows that Indiana did not exceed the performance goals outlined in 

the Indiana SHSP for 5 year rolling averages of Fatalities, Severe (Incapacitating) Injuries, 

Fatality Rate and Severe Injury Rate. However in 2015, Indiana was part of a national trend of 

increased numbers of severe crash events.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

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 

2014. In 2014, the 5 year average of fatalities resulting from single vehicle lane departures this 

crash category accounted for 46.1% of all Indiana motor vehicle fatalities, compared to the 5 

year average of 48.7% calculated in 2013. As a result, INDOT has developed several systemic 

improvement types aimed at reducing the incidence and consequences of lane departure 

crashes.

Fatalities as a result of intersection crashes make up the second worst type of harmful event. In 

2014 the 5 year average of intersection fatalities contributed 24.1% of total traffic fatalities, 

similar to the 24.2% average from 2013. INDOT is advancing systemic improvements to 

increase the visibility of both signalized and un-signalized intersections. INDOT is also engaged 

in a changing out older 5 section "permitted/protected" left turn traffic signal heads 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, along with 

increased use of innovative intersection types to reduce traffic conflicts; such as Roundabouts, J 

Turns and Michigan Left Turn designs. In 2014, INDOT produced a guideline document to 

assist traffic designers in the task of making preliminary determination of feasibility of various 

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

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

pedestrians, bicycle and motorcycle riders, and is working with our partners on education 

efforts. In 2014 the 5 year rolling average rate of pedestrian fatalities made up 8.1% of all traffic 

fatalities. This is a slight drop from the 8.2% 5 year average recorded in 2013. The 5 year 

average percentage of fatalities that involve bicyclists was 1.85% compared to the 5 year 

average in 2013 of 1.70%. It should be kept in mind that rise may be due to larger numbers of 

bicycle users on Indiana roadways. The number of motorcycle and moped crashes was slightly 

lower in 2014 compared to 2013, but it should be noted that motorcycle/moped crashes are 

generally rising in numbers. On the basis of the 5 year rolling averages motorcycle and moped 

fatalities accounted for 15.9% in 2014 compared to 16.9% for 2013. 

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.746 0.752 0.756 0.732 0.758

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

1.73 1.646 1.67 1.666 1.682
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

2.48 2.398 2.424 2.396 2.44

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

(A) Fatality rate per year = Number of persons age 65 and Older Fatalities (FARS data) for State of 

Indiana in a given year / FHWA Supplied Number of persons age 65 and Older (per 1,000 total 

population) for State of Indiana in the same year.

(B) Serious injury rate per year = Number of persons age 65 and Older Serious injuries (Indiana ARIES 

System) for a given year / FHWA Supplied Number of persons age 65 and Older (per 1,000 total 

population) for State of Indiana in the same year.

(C) Fatality and Serious injury rate per year = Fatalities of persons age 65 and over + Serious injuries of 

persons age 65 and over for State of Indiana a given year / FHWA Supplied Number of persons age 65 

and Older (per 1,000 total population) for State of Indiana in the same year.

(2011) Calculation of 5 year rolling average for Fatality and Serious Injuries rate = (2011C + 2010C + 

2009C + 2008C + 2007C) / 5 = (2.57 + 2.45 + 2.29 + 2.31 + 2.50) / 5 = 2.42 ~ rounded = 2.4

(2013) Calculation of 5 year rolling average for Fatalities and Serious Injuries rate = (2013C + 2012C + 

2011C +2010C + 2009C) / 5 = (2.53 + 2.36 + 2.57 + 2.45 + 2.29) / 5 = 2.44 ~ rounded = 2.4
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

77

INDOT is in the process with its partner agencies of rewriting the Indiana Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP). In the DRAFT revision of the SHSP, specific countermeasures are 

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 and new countermeasures, methodologies or technologies in the coming 

years.

Greater emphasis has been placed on metropolitan planning organizations to make good 

choices in selecting safety improvements for HSIP funding. As a result INDOT has requested 

each of the Indiana MPOs to submit a document describing the data driven process that will be 

used by each MPO to select candidate safety improvement projects. The submitted procedures 

are reviewed for approval by the multi-agency Highway Safety Advisory Committee (HSAC).

These individual MPO developed process documents will give the local agencies a clear set of 

criteria to prioritize candidate safety improvements prior to applying for HSIP funding, at the 

same time allowing for local input into the project selection process, and improve the ability of 

INDOT or FHWA to conduct future process reviews.

In October of 2014 a new version of the Electronic Crash Reporting Tool used by officers was 

deployed to law enforcement agencies across the State of Indiana. The new version of the 

crash reporting tool changed the parameters for determination of injuries as class “A” severity 

on the KABCO scale. A new uniform method has been developed for declaring an injury to be 

“Incapacitating”; the definition used by Indiana to classify injury severity “A” for crash events and 

casualties. The new classification method was developed 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 had been inconsistently 

applied. Inconsistency 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.

Previously, officers were asked to use subjective judgment to decide if injuries would be 

classified as incapacitating. The revised electronic reporting tool now 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. This change removes the 

subjective element from the determination of class “A” injury severity.

The Indiana TRCC made the change in order to achieve more consistent, reliable data over the 

long term. The TRCC accepts the fact that over the next few years, the frequency and rate of 

serious injury data would appear to be distorted when compared to the data from past years.

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

change in the method of injury severity classification. To date, the apparent effect of this 

change has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that are classified as class 

“A” (incapacitating) injuries. It is expected that this trend will continue as full data for calendar 

2015 is added to the records system. Also expected is a continuing effect on calculation of 5 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

year average data for serious injury (level A) crash frequency, casualty counts and resulting rate 

(per HMVMT). Offsetting reductions are expected in crash events and casualties classified at 

lower severity. We ask that FHWA consider this change in reporting methodology as part of any 

review of Indiana Crash data.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 202 741 0.26 0.94 0 0 0

Intersections Intersections 177 1282.2 0.23 1.63 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 60 161.6 0.08 0.21 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/pedestrian 13.6 82 0.02 0.1 0 0 0

Motorcyclists Motorcycle & 

Moped

116.8 512.2 0.15 0.65 0 0 0

Work Zones Work Zone 15.2 57.8 0.02 0.07 0 0 0
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

84

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2014

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rural State Highways Rural State Highways 314.2 1002.2 0.81 2.55 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety Vehicle/pedestrian 60 162 0.08 0.21 0 0 0

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

All 746 3609.4 0.92 4.59 0 0 0

Other-Traffic Signal 

Visibility 

Improvement

Intersection Crashes 177 1282 0.23 1.63 0 0 0

Other-Centerline and 

Edgeline Rumble 

Stripes

Run-off-Road & Left 

of Centerline

540.4 1912 0.69 2.44 0 0 0

Local Safety Local Roads 322.6 1956.2 0.84 5.09 0 0 0

Crash Data All 746 3609.4 0.92 4.59 0 0 0

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 202 741 0.26 0.94 0 0 0

Median Barrier Run-off-road 202 741 0.26 0.94 0 0 0
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

85

Intersection Intersection Crashes 177 1282.2 0.23 1.63 0 0 0
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

In October of 2015 a new version of the Electronic Crash Reporting Tool used by officers was deployed to law enforcement agencies 

across the State of Indiana. The new version of the crash reporting tool changed the parameters for determination of injuries as 

class “A” severity on the KABCO scale. A new uniform method has been developed for declaring an injury to be “Incapacitating”; the 

definition used by Indiana to classify injury severity “A” for crash events and casualties. The new classification method was 

developed 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 had been inconsistently applied. Inconsistency 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.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

Previously, officers were asked to use subjective judgment to decide if injuries would be classified as incapacitating. The revised 

electronic reporting tool now 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. This change removes the subjective element from the 

determination of class “A” injury severity.

The Indiana TRCC made the change in order to achieve more consistent, reliable data over the long term. The TRCC accepts the 

fact that over the next few years, the frequency and rate of serious injury data would appear to be distorted when compared to the 

data from past years.

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

classification. To date, the apparent effect of this change has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that are 

classified as class “A” (incapacitating) injuries. It is expected that this trend will continue as full data for calendar 2015 is added to 

the records system. Also expected is a continuing effect on calculation of 5 year average data for serious injury (level A) crash 

frequency, casualty counts and resulting rate (per HMVMT). Offsetting reductions are expected in crash events and casualties 

classified at lower severity. We ask that FHWA consider this change in reporting methodology as part of any review of Indiana Crash 

data.

A revision is made to data for the subprogram “Other-Centerline and Edge-line Rumble Stripes. All 5 year average 

measure of effectiveness data fields for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 now include all Fatal and Serious Injury 

crashes and rates involving Run-off-Road to the right and all crashes left of the roadway centerline (Run-off-road to the 

left, Head-On and Opposite Direction Sideswipe). 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

Serious 

injury rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Intersections 177 1282.2 0.23 1.63 0 0 0

Rumble Strips Run-off-Road &

Left of 

Centerline

540.4 1912 0.69 2.44 0 0 0

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Intersections 177 1282.2 0.23 1.63 0 0 0

Cable Median Barriers Run-off-road 202 741 0.26 0.94 0 0 0

Install/Improve Signing All 746 3609.4 0.92 4.59 0 0 0

Upgrade Guard Rails Run-off-road 202 741 0.26 0.94 0 0 0
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

91
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

92
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

93
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

94

In October of 2015 a new version of the Electronic Crash Reporting Tool used by officers was deployed to law enforcement agencies 

across the State of Indiana. The new version of the crash reporting tool changed the parameters for determination of injuries as 

class “A” severity on the KABCO scale. A new uniform method has been developed for declaring an injury to be “Incapacitating”; the 

definition used by Indiana to classify injury severity “A” for crash events and casualties. The new classification method was 

developed 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 had been inconsistently applied. Inconsistency 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.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

95

Previously, officers were asked to use subjective judgment to decide if injuries would be classified as incapacitating. The revised 

electronic reporting tool now 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. This change removes the subjective element from the 

determination of class “A” injury severity.

The Indiana TRCC made the change in order to achieve more consistent, reliable data over the long term. The TRCC accepts the 

fact that over the next few years, the frequency and rate of serious injury data would appear to be distorted when compared to the 

data from past years.

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

classification. To date, the apparent effect of this change has been a significant rise in the number of crash casualties that are 

classified as class “A” (incapacitating) injuries. It is expected that this trend will continue as full data for calendar 2015 is added to 

the records system. Also expected is a continuing effect on calculation of 5 year average data for serious injury (level A) crash 

frequency, casualty counts and resulting rate (per HMVMT). Offsetting reductions are expected in crash events and casualties 

classified at lower severity. We ask that FHWA consider this change in reporting methodology as part of any review of Indiana Crash 

data.

A revision is made to data for the systemic subprogram “Rumble Strips” (Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Stripes). All 5 

year average measure of effectiveness data fields for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 now include all Fatal and Serious 

Injury crashes and rates involving Run-off-Road to the right and all crashes left of the roadway centerline (Run-off-road to 

the left, Head-On and Opposite Direction Sideswipe). 
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

96

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

The combined efforts of Indiana’s engineering, education, law enforcement, and emergency 

medical communities are contributing to an overall decline in serious crash outcomes. A trend 

of fewer severe crashes and increasing percentage of property damage crashes has occurred 

since the beginning of the HSIP. The extent of contribution by HSIP projects to improved safety 

is difficult to quantify with current data sources and analysis capabilities, but it’s clear that safety 

programs are a factor influencing the downward trend in severe crash outcomes. Fatal and 

injury crash trends experienced a somewhat consistent rate between the start of SAFTEA-LU in 

2005 through 2007 then experienced a larger downward trend in 2008 and 2009, at the same 

time as VMT estimates declined. From year 2010 through 2014, the estimated VMT has 

resumed its previous growth trends. The incidence of severe injury crashes in most of the 

monitored emphasis areas increased in calendar year 2014, however the recent change in 

classification of serious injury crashes was a significant factor in this increase.

When comparing 2014 to 2013, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased by 2.57%. Over 

the same period, rates of fatal crashes increased slightly by 0.01%, while the rate of crashes 

involving injury outcomes increased by 4.22%. In response to these trends INDOT will seek to 

increase the number and variety of systemic safety programs applicable to both state and local 

roads.
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

97

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functio

nal 

Class

Improvem

ent 

Category

Improvement Type Bef

-

Fat

al

BefSerio

us 

Injur

y

BefAll 

Injuri

es

Bef

-

PD

O

BefTot

al

AftFat

al

AftSerio

us 

Injur

y

AftAll 

Injuri

es

Aft

-

PD

O

AftTot

al

Evaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ Cost 

Ratio)

9801040 SR 26, 

1.96 miles and 4.09 

miles W of SR 526 

at Tippecanoe CR 

300W and 500W

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0 0 1 13 14 0 0 1 0 1 3

0003600 SR 26 @ 

Dixon Rd( CR 

200W)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 0 1 10 11 0 0 3 8 11 0.76923076923

0769

9610040 SR 26 @ 

Dixon Rd( CR 

200W)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0 0 1 10 11 0 0 3 8 11 0.77272727272

7273

0002710 SR 37 @ 

131st Street

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 0 2 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0.76
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

98

9901380 SR 37 @ 

131st Street

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0 0 2 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0.24

9902740 SR 62, 

From Salem 

Church Rr/Dave 

Carr Rd to 

Sycamore Dr

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 7 9 0.14285714285

7143

0300577 Red 

Bank Rd, at 

Upper 

Mt.Vermont Rd

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection flashers -

add overhead (actuated)

0 0 1 5 6 0 0 0 14 14 0.61290322580

6452

0400756 ST 

1010, At State 

and 24th Streets, 

four hundred feet 

N of SR 25 (Teal 

Road)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 0 3 24 28 0 0 3 13 16 1.84615384615

385

0400646 10th 

Street at 

Shadeland Ave.

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0 1 36 103 140 0 0 16 47 63 2.40350877192

982

0400083 ST 

1018, At Day 

Road and 

Bittersweet

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 9 13 0.33333333333

3333
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

99

0100477 US 231, 

At Lane Street, 

4.25 miles E of US 

41

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify intersection 

corner radius

0 0 3 3 6 0 0 3 8 11 0.89830508474

5763

9900700 US 231, 

At Smith Rd, 0.2 

mi S of I-74

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 4 9 13 0 0 1 8 9 2.01886792452

83

0002790 US 231, 

At Smith Rd, 0.2 

mi S of I-74

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 0 4 9 13 0 0 1 8 9 2

9611730 US 31, 

At Whiteland Rd 

(Main St)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 1 8 12 21 0 1 7 12 20 1.16666666666

667

971173A US 31, 

At Whiteland Rd 

(Main St)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 1 8 12 21 0 1 7 12 20 1.17182130584

192

0100706 IR 1003, 

Aboite Center Rd 

from W Jefferson 

Blvd to Coventry 

Ln

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0 0 22 87 109 0 1 8 50 59 1.77272727272

727
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

100

0600173 IR 1021, 

Smith Road at 

Rogers Road, SE 

of Bloomington

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 1.1

0013110 SR 127, 

At Mill St, 0.279 

mile N of US 20

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

right-turn lane

0 0 2 13 15 0 0 6 20 26 0.55737704918

0328

0300359 SR 127, 

At Mill St, 0.279 

mile N of US 21

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

0 0 2 13 15 0 0 6 20 26 0.80295566502

4631

0015040 SR 162, 

At CR 1600N and 

E jct with SR 245

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0 0 4 22 26 0 0 0 6 6 6.9

0100648 SR 19, 

At Bristol and 

Cassopolis 

Streets, 1.98 

miles S of I-80/I90

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0 0 16 94 110 0 0 5 55 60 2.16480446927

374

0300289 SR 19, 

At Bristol and 

Cassopolis 

Streets, 1.98 

miles S of I-80/IUrban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 0 16 94 110 0 0 5 55 60 2.16351351351

351
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

101

91

0400889 SR 2, At 

Burr Street

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 8 38 46 0 0 6 26 32 1.42857142857

143

0013760 SR 28, 

At SR 213 and SR 

213 at CR 150S

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

acceleration/deceleratio

n lane

0 0 3 5 8 0 0 1 2 3 2.14285714285

714

0600129 SR 39, 

At I-70 

interchange

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Lighting Intersection lighting 0 0 5 14 19 0 0 9 14 23 0.9

8574400 SR 59, 

From 0.1 mile N 

of SR 58 to 0.4 

mile N of SR 58

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 3 0.125

0101128 ST 

1002, 

Intersection of 

6th Street 

/Rickey Road

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0 0 1 15 16 0 0 0 3 3 5.2

0400897 ST 

1010, Main 

Street, Wiggs 

Street and 

Industrial Dr at 

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 0 2 10 12 0 0 1 2 3 3.33333333333

333
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

102

Canadian 

National RR 

tracks

0400740 ST 

1020, Cleveland 

Road at Hickory 

Road

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 4 16 20 0 0 1 17 18 1.25

0500180 ST 

1022, Bittersweet 

at Cleveland 

Road, just S of the 

I-80/90 Toll Rd

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

re-assign existing lane 

use

0 1 6 32 39 0 0 2 16 18 2.66666666666

667

0100660 US 231, 

At CR 600N, 1.08 

miles S of SR 56 

(N jct)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 2 6 8 0 0 0 8 8 1.89130434782

609

9901980 US 6, At 

Mander Road, 

1.54 miles E of SR 

49

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

auxiliary through lane

0 0 2 12 14 1 0 1 12 14 0.63043478260

8696

0000260 US 6, At 

SR 15 (Inclds 

Channelization)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 2 7 44 53 0 0 3 30 33 2.23333333333

333

0400084 Eddy at 

LaSalle

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 1 10 17 28 0 0 3 18 21 1.83333333333

333
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

103

Other

0901956 From 

0.05 mile W of US 

31 to US 31 West 

Stop Bar

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadside Barrier - other 0 0 7 32 39 0 0 3 23 26 1.68446601941

748

0710356 

Intersection of 

Ireland Rd and 

Locust Rd

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0 1 1 13 15 0 0 0 7 7 2.82608695652

174

0400363 IR 1020, 

CR 15 at CR 45

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0 0 1 16 17 0 0 2 10 12 1.20967741935

484

0300578 Jenning 

St at Main St and 

Plum St 

Intersection, 2.0 

mi E of I-64

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add slip 

lane

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

9901020 SR 19, 

At CR 42, 1.0 

miles north of SR 

119.

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 1 12 13 0 1 2 7 10 0.5

9901410 SR 32, 

At Rangeline Rd, 

0.72 mile E of SR 

9

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

right-turn lane

0 0 4 9 13 0 0 1 7 8 2.17241379310

345
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

104

0003700 SR 32, 

At Rangeline Rd, 

0.72 mile E of SR 

9

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 0 4 9 13 0 0 1 7 8 2.17592592592

593

0003610 SR 56, 

At CR 500W

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0 0 2 3 5 0 0 1 4 5 1.37804878048

78

9405020 SR 56, 

At CR 500W

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

right-turn lane

0 0 2 3 5 0 0 1 4 5 1.375

0501100 ST 

1001, Frontage 

roads from Taney 

Pl, .39 mi W of SR 

55 to 81st Pl, .2 

mi E of SR 53

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Roadway - other 1 7 224 530 762 0 1 49 180 230 4

0400649 ST 

1009, At 

Westlane Road 

and Michigan 

Road

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

re-assign existing lane 

use

0 0 9 22 31 0 0 5 14 19 1.625

0501098 US 30, 

At Polo Club 

Drive/Saturn 

Drive, .31 mile E 

of SR 55 (Taft St)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

0 0 2 5 7 0 0 3 14 17 0.60532687651

3317
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

105

0501099 US 30, 

US 30 approach 

to Kmart 1500 

feet W of SR 53

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0101486 US 33, 

At Clingerman 

Avenue, 0.5 mile 

N of SR 205

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0 0 1 3 4 0 0 2 2 4 0.82352941176

4706

0100750 SR 

144, At Kitchen 

Road, 3.2 miles E 

of SR 67

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

0 1 11 15 27 0 0 7 7 14 2.45454545454

545

0810012 ST 

1001, On Lincoln 

Ave, from 

Rotherwood Ave 

to S Hebron Ave

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier - other 0 2 45 109 156 0 2 14 111 127 1.63640595903

166

0800443 ST 

1024, Atwater 

Ave @ Henderson 

St./relocation of 

access to Dun St. 

fr Atwater Ave

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 0 12 26 38 0 1 8 10 19 1.96296296296

296

0810293 IR 1001, 

Relocate 

entrance to 

Portage HS on 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

existing left-turn lane

0 0 5 5 10 0 0 7 9 16 0.625
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

106

Airport Rd appx 

1400' no of US6 

at mile 23.1

1005759 ST 

1031, Intersctns 

of S 4th with 

South St (SR26 

east) and with 

Columbia St 

(SR26 west)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

0 0 21 59 80 0 1 11 69 81 1.09819699001

639

1005765 ST 

1001, 

Intersection of 

Dragoon Trail 

and Logan Street

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify 

two-way left-turn lane

0 0 7 25 32 0 1 6 17 24 1.23611111111

111

0012870 SR 267, 

At CR 100N, 1.01 

mile N of US 36

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 3 7 53 63 0 1 6 54 61 1.57819905213

27

0200389 SR 267, 

At CR 100N, 1.01 

miles N of US 36

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0 3 7 53 63 0 1 6 54 61 1.58356164383

562

0013100 US 27, 

At SR 218

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

re-assign existing lane 

use

0 0 2 10 12 0 0 1 10 11 1.23809523809

524
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

107

Other

0100662 SR 64, 

At CR 350 E

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

0 0 1 22 23 0 0 0 14 14 2.11111111111

111

0100771 SR 46, 

At Parkview 

Drive, E of 

Nashville

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 0 8 8 0 0 1 7 8 0.6

0101485 SR 15, 

At CR 100 South / 

Rozella Road

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane1 0 1 16 18 0 0 0 1 1 28

0201142 US 40, 

2.50 miles E of SR 

1 at 

Pennville/Jackso

nburg Road

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 0 1 1 5 7 0 1 1 8 10 0.96153846153

8461

0200749 SR 59, 

0.5 mile N of SR 

67

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0 1 4 6 11 0 0 1 3 4 5.1

0600172 ST 

1021, Dartmouth 

Dr & Washington 

Center Rd

Urban 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify 

left-turn lane offset

0 0 21 45 66 0 1 0 15 16 3.68852459016

393
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

108

0710474 IR 1016, 

CR 300N at 

Fortville Pike

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 0 2 9 12 0 0 3 7 10 1.25

0501101 US 30, 

from Taney Pl, 

.39 mi W of SR 55 

to 81st Pl, .2 mi E 

of SR 53

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadside Roadside - other 2 7 109 521 639 0 7 121 591 719 1.01988568706

835
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

109

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

110

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.