Page 1 of 66

INDIANA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 66

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology .....................................................................................................................12

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................28

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................28

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................32

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

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

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................47

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................51

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................52

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................52

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................53

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................56

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................61
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 66

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.”
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 66

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) 2019. 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 HSIP report, does not include the annual rail-highway crossing safety report as required under 

23 U.S.C. § 130(g). The current ORT system requires that the report of the Rail/Highway Crossing Safety 

Program be submitted as a separate report.

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 2019, beginning October 1, 2018 and ending on September 30, 2019. 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 under INDOT jurisdiction.

Performance:

The number of reported motor vehicle crash fatalities dropped from 914 in calendar year 2017 to 880 in 2018, 

which represents a decrease of 3.72%. The early estimate for 2018 vehicle miles of travel indicates an 

increase of 1.1% from 2017 to 2018. As a result the estimated rate of fatalities per one hundred million vehicle 

miles of travel (HMVMT) was also reduced by 4.8 % from 1.118 in 2017 to an estimated 1.064 in 2018.

The incidence of suspected serious injuries in 2017 was 3,388 compared to 3,210 in 2018. This represents a 

5.25% decrease in calendar year 2018 compared to 2017. The estimated rate of suspected serious injury 

(class ‘A’ injury) outcomes per HMVMT decreased by 7.7%, from 4.145 suspected serious injuries in 2017 to 

3.827 suspected serious injuries in 2018.

This shift in crash severity is difficult to explain on the basis of employment rate which continues to be low. 

Employment rate has been found to be a major factor influencing serious crash outcomes over the last several 

years. 

Weather conditions in the late winter and spring are believed to have had an influence in 2017. A mild spring 

with relatively warm dry weather may be a factor in a spike of motorcycle related fatalities that occurred in 

2017. The weather in the same time period of 2018 was more typical with wet days compared to 2017 possibly 

resulting in a regression to the mean.

While recent decreases in serious injuries and fatalities are encouraging, INDOT seeks to continue the 

downward trend by increasing the number and variety of systemic safety programs applicable to both state and 

local roads.

Suspected Serious Injury Method:

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

participant is transported from the scene by first responder for treatment at an emergency room or trauma 

center. This definition was previously acceptable under the MMUUCC Third Edition and was previously used 

by Indiana to classify injury severity for crash events and casualties. The revised method used to classify 

incapacitating injures was deployed in response to agreement among members of the Indiana Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee (TRCC); that the use of officer’s judgment in regard to determination of incapacitating 

injuries in past years had been inconsistently applied. Inconsistency in classifying serious injuries was noticed 

both between officers, and regionally, among certain police agencies that were either instructing officers or 

developing informal approaches to marking injury severity that varies significantly from peer agencies. 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 66

Indiana’s electronic reporting tool currently classifies a crash participant as having an incapacitating injury if 

that person has been transported from the scene for medical treatment at an emergency room or trauma 

center.

The Indiana State Police Agency is currently deploying a new officer’s electronic reporting tool that is intended 

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

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

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

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

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

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

definition of incapacitating injury out of compliance. The current MMUCC based regulation for establishing and 

reporting traffic safety performance measures necessitate that for the time being Indiana approximate a level of 

injuries (Suspected Serious Injuries in MMUCC 4th Edition) so that current Indiana crash records may be used 

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

KABCO scale.

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

incapacitating injury count that remained reasonably consistent across the 10 years prior to the previously 

noted reclassification. Statewide counts of incapacitating injuries for the years 2004 to 2013 were analyzed as 

a percentage of total numbers of non-fatal injuries. The number of reported probable KABCO class “A” injuries 

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

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

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

most recent three years of the 10 year analysis period (2011 to 2013), the value was adjusted to 7.2% of all 

injuries. Indiana continues to use this percentage of non-fatal injuries for each year to represent the number of 

“Suspected Serious Injuries.” Until such time that actual counts of Class ‘A’ injuries may be collated from the 

Indiana crash records system.

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

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

establish the percentage contribution of “Suspected Serious Injuries” to all non-fatal injuries in that subset.

In the case of statewide percent of Non-Motorist “A” Injuries of All Non-Motorist Non-Fatal Injuries a similar 

analysis was conducted for the same time period (2004–2013). A resulting average of 13.0% of all injuries is 

the current suspected serious injury percentage used in this report. Note that the percentage of Non-Motorist 

fatalities for the same time period was found to average 10.5% of all fatalities. The 2018 count of 140 nonmotorized fatalities indicates a disturbing growth to 15.9% of all fatalities.

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

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

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

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

change, technology proliferation, and weather.

In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019, the total expected obligation of federal program funds for safety infrastructure 

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

be about $68.16 million dollars. The planned federal obligation total exceeds the 2019 apportionment of HSIP 

funds at $55.02 million for 2019. Prior to obligation of HSIP funds Indiana is under a Section 164-HE transfer 

that in 2019 requires an obligation $17.79 million dollars. INDOT is currently increasing efforts to obligate all 

available federal safety dollars.

All projects approved for funding in HSIP, HRRRP and the Section 164-HE programs are required to address 

at least one of the emphasis areas defined in the Indiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 66

HSIP Project Selection/Prioritization:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Indiana SHSP.

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

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

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

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

Local Project Selection Guidance.

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

agencies for safety projects on local system roads. In FFY 2019 the set aside for locally sponsored safety 

projects was approximately $18.7 million. Individual Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), receive 

annual apportionments of obligation authority and a predetermined amount of obligation authority is also setaside 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 .
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 66

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

State System program: 

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

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

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

Planning, Traffic Engineering, Local Public Agency & Grant Administration, Capital Asset Management and 

Project Finance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

include both spot and systemic safety improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with the Division of Budget and Project Accounting.

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

assigned project manager utilizing the Scheduling Project Mangement System.

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

construction.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 66

Local Safety Program: 

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

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

unit to make one third of INDOT’s its total annual apportionment of HSIP funding available to local public 

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDOT for determination of project eligibility to utilize HSIP funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eligibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the project design.

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

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

INDOT Construction Management Division.

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

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

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

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

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

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

Capitol Program Mangement Business Unit. The primary functions of the Office of Traffic Safety is planning, 

prioritization and analysis in support of the HSIP in the state of Indiana.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Formula via MPOs
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 66

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

described in the response under Question 3.

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

managed assistance program.

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

systemic safety improvement projects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and risk of severe crashes on public roadways.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 66

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

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

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

funding.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Capital Asset Management

• Other-Research Division

• Other-Budget & Project Accounting Division

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

Divisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with the Division of Budget and Project Accounting.

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

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

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

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

coordinate all project development tasks.

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

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

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

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

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

coordinate development of the construction project.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 66

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

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

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

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

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

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

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

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

safety planning analysis tools for INDOT and its local partners.

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

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

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

them toward developing HSIP eligible safety projects.

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

(SHSP) with state and local agencies as well as the FHWA Division Office. Two principal SHSP partners are 

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

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

Fatality Analysis Reporting System office.

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

Indiana’s 14 Metropolitan Planning Organizations through the MPO Council. To assist in coordination with rural 

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

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

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

A joint effort with LTAP and FHWA was started in FY 2019 to encourage counties to prepare Local Road 

Safety Plans (LRSPs). Currently one county has a plan essentially complete with 5 other counties and one 

MPO engaged in actively preparing LRSP documents.

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

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

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

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

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

as well as other organized events.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 66

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

elaborate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HRRRP funding. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

funding obligation fiscal year, scheduling of plan development and construction contract letting. Once a project 

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

At present INDOT does not have a combined HSIP manual, although there are INDOT published documents 

on file with the FHWA Indiana Division Office that provide policies and guidance to staff and partner agencies 

including:

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

system safety improvement project selection and methodology for scoring and prioritization of 

candidate projects including HSIP assets. 

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

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

candidate project HSIP eligibility determination are posted on the INDOT website for public access. 

• Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) management guidance document for the Indiana HSIP 

funded Hazard Elimination Program for Existing Roads and Streets (HELPERS). 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 66

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR

• Intersection

• Local Safety

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Other-Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Stripes 

• Other-Traffic Signal Visibility Improvement

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

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

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

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

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

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/29/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Roadway and/or shoulder Width 

potental for Road Diet 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 66

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:7/29/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Roadway and/or shoulder Width 

potental for Road Diet 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 66

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-FHWA Set-Aside

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 66

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:40

Available funding:60

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

distance 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 66

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Designated split of HSIP Apportionment

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Competes with other local projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Geometric Features, marking and 

signs 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

No

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

State Roads are not addressed in this SubProgram

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 66

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Median width 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 66

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Median width 

Roadside features 

Other-Geometrics features and land use 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 66

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 66

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Targeted to improve local road safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Geometric Features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Retroreflectivity of Existing Signs

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

No

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

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

under the safety program

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 66

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other-Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Stripes 

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 66

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other-Traffic Signal Visibility Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Other-Signalized Intersections 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 66

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Case 1-Mostly Local : Most bike safety (or Pedestrian Safety ) projects are identified and proposed for HSIP 

funding by local agencies as part of their non-motorized program planning due to exposure probability of bike 

involved crashes and are most often prioritized by MPOs. Projects proposed by rural local agencies or by 

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

are installed as part of road diets or elimination of on-street parking – For Pedestrian projects: Typically curb 

ramps, refuge areas or hybrid beacons are installed as the primary countermeasures. 

Case 2-Shared : Curve Safety / Roadway Departure projects on the State Highway network are identified by 

annual network safety screening and are proposed to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritizations by the 

relevant INDOT district office according to relative risk for future lane departure crashes. 

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

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

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

according to relative future crash risk.

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

for potential HRRR program funding is performed by INDOT OTS.

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

Intersection Safety program.

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

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

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

for where existing friction is lower than acceptable.

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

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

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

INDOT district office according to relative future crash risk.

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

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

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

Local Safety : All local sponsored projects are identified and proposed for HSIP funding by local agencies. The 

majority of local project proposals are in urban areas and are therefore most often prioritized by MPOs. 

Projects proposed by rural local agencies are prioritized by the Office of Traffic Safety and the relevant INDOT 

district office.

Sign Replacement and Improvement projects are exclusively local agency sponsored safety improvements as 

state network roadways are part of the INDOT Maintenance program. Proposed projects are typically identified 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 66

by local agencies due to deteriorated condition or lack of retroreflectivity of their regulatory and warning signs. 

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

planning areas. Each local agency is required to conduct a geocoded inventory of their existing signs and 

commit to ongoing maintenance of the replaced signs.

Case 3 – Mostly State: Median Barrier / Rumble Stripe projects are conducted on State network roadways and 

consist of the systemic application of median barrier to mitigate / reduce cross median crash severity. Project 

identification and prioritization are conducted by INDOT OTS and district staff. Local agencies may apply for 

HSIP project eligibility for median barrier / rumble stripe systemic projects, but to date this has not happened.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 31.7

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Other-Pedestrian Safety 

• Rumble Strips

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

• Upgrade Guard Rails

The Total Planned Systemic Project Obligation for FFY 2019 is $20,924,093.65

The program goal for the INDOT safety program by 2021 is to obligate approximately 50% of available HSIP 

funds on systemic improvement work types on a per year basis. Actual obligations for systemic projects may 

vary year to year due to project production factors and diversion of projects for obligation under the Section 

164-HE Penalty Transfer.

Note: Safety Edge has been an INDOT paving standard since 2012 but doesn’t contribute to HSIP spending.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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

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

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

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

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

not currently made through the HSIP.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 66

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

No

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

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

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

appropriate.

Calibration of SPFs for IHSDM and INDOT Safety analysis tools is an ongoing research project.

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

elaborate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

district offices. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

authority in regard to all submitted Change Management Requests.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a predetermined list of systemic safety project types that may be submitted via an INDOT developed form. 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 66

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $45,614,938 $45,703,027 100.19%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$1,184,569 $1,184,569 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$19,056,145 $19,056,145 100%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$2,215,424 $2,215,424 100%

State and Local Funds $5,068,388 $4,491,223 88.61%

Totals $73,139,464 $72,650,388 99.33%

The obligated program totals in the table includes planned transfers from Advance Construction (AC) to the 

HSIP, HRRRP and 164-HE programs. Amounts listed in the question 23 table reflect planned obligated funds 

totals at the time of reporting August 30, 2019. If transfers of project obligations from AC to HSIP do not occur 

before October 1, 2019 the funds may continue to appear as unobligated until FFY 2020. Changes in the final 

obligation totals may result due to the timing of transfers that occurred after the October 1 date.

Due to the Section 164 Penalty Fund requirement in FFY 2019 the current year planned obligation of HSIP 

eligible funds (absent the HRRRP Special Rule) is $45,703,027 or 100.2% of the total amount programmed for 

HSIP project obligation. 

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

safety projects?

$18,707,030

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

$14,336,511
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 66

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

projects. The planned HSIP allocation to local agencies for FFY 2019 is $18,707,030

In FFY 2019 the projected total obligation of funds to construct local safety projects is expected to be 

$14,336,511 or 86.4% of total apportionment.

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

$251,000

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

$624,296

Des 1383183 HSIP is used to fund the operations of the Hazard Elimination Program for Exiting Roads and 

Streets (HELPERS) Program managed by the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program. The funding for 

HELPERS is programmed at $251,000 for FFY 2019. Activities conducted by the HELPERS program include 

local safety planning support, data collection and systemic analysis and technical assistance including 

facilitating Road Safety Assessment (RSA) teams.

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

2019 MPO obligation or HSIP funds for safety planning obligations totaled $373,296.

The total obligation of non-infrastructure funds was 1.13% of the FFY 2019 apportionment.

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

Due to the Section 164 Penalty Fund requirement, in past years INDOT has typically transferred 50% of HSIP 

funds to other programs resulting in an apparent backlog of unobligated funds. The transfers were performed 

to balance INDOT's asset management policy. In FFY 2019 a no transfer of funds from HSIP took place.

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

the future. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 66

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, emergency response and travel demand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

base therefore for FFY 2019 Indiana is out of compliance. The new guidelines will also require officers 

untrained in emergency medicine to determine a level of trauma to the victim from a list of possible injuries. Not 

only is this a difficult task for most officers who are not medically trained but injury assessment is not an 

officers primary duty at a crash scene. Good communication between emergency medical technicians and 

reporting officers will be more time consuming and is inherently inconsistent from one officer to the next, and 

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

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

Electronic Indiana Crash Reporting Tool for Officers. The new officer reporting tool titled ARIES 6.0 has 

passed beta testing and is currently undergoing a year-long deployment phase. Retraining for all officers that 

will use the new reporting tool is required.

The Indiana TRCC Working Group will continue to meet and discuss methods of complying with the MMUCC 

guidelines while maintaining the overall goal of making the officers’ job at a crash scene as rapid, accurate and 

consistent as possible. In the meantime, INDOT has proposed a method to estimate annual suspected serious 

injury counts from the crash database.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

class. 

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

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

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

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

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

not match FHWA potentially adding misperception of actual conditions.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 66

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the coming years.

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

infrastructure capital investments. The Asset Management system provides a means to budget for needed 

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

INDOTs ability to select and produce high value safety projects. Candidate safety projects undergo weighted 

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

effective crash countermeasures. Spot improvement projects are prioritized and programmed from 18 months 

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

involved development process.

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

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

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

priority for increased investment in traffic safety .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

substantive crash rates that aid in prioritizing project proposals. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

guide the selection of appropriate and effective crash countermeasures.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 66

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1601162 Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

654 Stop and 

Yield Lines

$23326.93 $25918.82 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 7,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Remark 

pavement 

markings

1601849 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 27 Ramps $221319.36 $252481.97 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 5,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1602161 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

2239 Signs $327011.06 $327011.06 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility

1801628 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 29 Ramps $394831.8 $466801.82 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 5,500 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1401648 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 Intersections $1316439.5 $1462710.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,100 45 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Roundabout

1500337 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $357739.74 $397488.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,500 40 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Modernization

1500422 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 9 Ramps $273567.22 $303963.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 27,500 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1500431 Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

0.08 Miles $72000 $335378.31 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

150 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail End 

Treatments

1500432 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 24 Ramps $254897.19 $283219.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1500434 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 68 Ramps $463633.43 $528155.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1500438 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 73 Ramps $669591.38 $743990.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Spot Pedestrians ADA Ramps
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 66

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Highway 

Agency

1592300 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 10 Ramps $282557.38 $1003861.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Collector 3,000 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1600885 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 Intersections $1317761.36 $1464179.29 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Construct a 

roundabout

1601727 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 1 Locations $18361.09 $19290.1 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major Collector 8,820 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Ped Crossing 

with Flasher

1601824 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

stop-controlled

1632 Signs $698538.93 $706687.93 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 5,000 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Sign Visibility

1601851 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

2 Intersections $977251 $1705794.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 17,200 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Systemic 

Improvements

1801599 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

8 Intersections $67579.2 $75088 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,000 50 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Systemic 

Improvements

1006121 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - 

other

0.51 Miles $2587214.43 $2675739.38 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major Collector 7,250 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

1006612 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Intersections $687319.29 $845311.67 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther29,380 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Added 

Capacity

1006622 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Intersections $1605996.84 $1607822.06 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,309 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Added 

Capacity

1172176 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

7 Intersections $964170.93 $964170.93 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Modernization

1172299 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 Widened to 

provide 

additional 

through 

lanes

$2621315.52 $2892611.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,257 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Added 

Capacity
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 66

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1400001 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

modify intersection corner 

radius

1 Intersections $675145.55 $1360624.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,369 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improved 

Corner Radii

1400002 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersections $687624 $762860.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 13,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Left Turn 

Safety

1401030 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Intersections $2072482.68 $2276581 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,600 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Added 

Capacity

1401282 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersections $1126990.65 $1232760.17 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 6,500 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Added 

Capacity

1401827 Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

1 Intersections $26169.47 $103589.47 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,277 50 State

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve Sight 

Distance

1401849 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 Change to JTurn 

Intersection

$1259811.68 $1621536.78 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,900 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Right 

Angle 

Crashes

1500277 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

modify skew angle

1 Intersections $1147126.92 $1147126.92 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

1592152 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $1918183 $2131314.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 20,717 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway

Agency

Spot Intersections Roundabout

1592420 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

emergency vehicle 

preemption

90 Intersections $3470040 $3820463 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther30,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Emergency 

Pre-Emption

1592630 Roadside Barrier- metal 0.1 Miles $307688.23 $463447.84 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,570 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install 

Guardrail

1600212 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 52 Ramps $2150013.13 $2411903.48 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,328 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1600699 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

1 Intersections $36399.14 $53899.14 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install 

Flashing 

Beacon

1601159 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

0.98 Miles $661748.1 $726479 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 7,000 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install Rumble 

Stripes
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 66

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1601726 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - 

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

1 Intersections $59510.84 $66123.16 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 8,820 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install HAWK 

Flasher

1601728 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 School 

Speed Zone 

Signs

$10721.66 $11246.29 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,660 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot School Zone 

Speed Limit 

Reduction

Install sign 

with Flashers

1601774 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 50 Ramps $700067.87 $723019.86 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1601834 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

5 Intersections $245524.01 $246024.01 HSIP (23

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther30,150 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal 

Visibility

1601835 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

9 Intersections $387967.13 $387967.13 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther44,915 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal 

Visibility

1602160 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 24516 Numbers $244961.9 $244961.9 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Refurbish 

RPMs

1700142 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

2 Install new 

traffic signal

$328645.16 $328645.16 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther27,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install signals

1700143 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

4 Intersections $943766.88 $985016.88 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther25,000 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1700234 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 28377 Numbers $352524.61 $352524.61 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Refurbish 

RPMs

1700235 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $608907.82 $608907.82 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther25,000 55 State 

Highway

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1700237 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

52.09 Miles $710808.91 $710808.91 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Install Rumble 

Stripes

1700316 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

9 Intersections $1104041.41 $1351556.41 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,000 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1700318 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

41 Intersections $662180.45 $662180.45 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther18,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal 

Visibility
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 66

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1700726 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0.04 Miles $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,487 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Added 

Capacity

1700979 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

5 Intersections $113920.72 $126578.58 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,000 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1701063 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 4 Crosswalks $298204.72 $324649.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 25,428 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install 

Pedestrian 

Flashing 

Beacons

1701173 Roadway Roadway - restripe to 

revise separation between 

opposing lanes and/or 

shoulder widths 

5.9 Miles $400522.72 $402180.8 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,500 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Restripe 

existing 

pavement

1701585 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 13 Ramps $231757.13 $232136.03 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major Collector 15,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1702082 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $49171.19 $49171.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1702083 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $92227.46 $92227.46 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1602159 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $191836.02 $192056.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,940 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1702325 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $176031.61 $176251.61 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther18,500 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1800876 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $63874.03 $296763.56 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1800877 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $157227.16 $157227.16 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1800879 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $161957.85 $161957.85 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther16,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1800880 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $133970.68 $133970.68 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,250 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 66

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1801234 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 68 Ramps $501566.48 $760029.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,100 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1801270 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 85 Ramps $419292.46 $641380.51 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 4,500 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians ADA Ramps

1801583 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $442508 $487502.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 11,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1801600 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $268400 $352427.01 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major Collector 10,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1801832 Roadside Barrier- metal 0.8 Miles $99689.13 $133989.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install 

Guardrail

1801835 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

17 Intersections $106452.75 $106452.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Battery 

Backup

1801937 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $146101.35 $146101.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther34,913 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1801954 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

4.2 Miles $76315.88 $76631.81 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,420 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Install Rumble 

Stripes

1801979 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $154955.26 $155175.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther18,562 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1802786 Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

26 Intersections $498727.78 $498727.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal 

Visibility

1601812 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $179054.75 $179054.75 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 11,500 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Modernize 

traffic signals

1601827 Alignment Vertical alignment or 

elevation change

1 Interchanges $2951551.11 $2951551.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 21,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Bridge 

Construction

1592345 Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to interchange

1 Interchanges $19026746.1 $19026746.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 21,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Construct a 

grade 

separated

interchange
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 66

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1700313 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 19563 Numbers $218079.83 $218079.83 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Refurbish 

RPMs

1702224 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $592123.77 $592123.77 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Signal 

Visibility

Some of the listed projects are currently in Advance Construction (AC) and are identified for transfer to HSIP status on or before October 1, 2019.

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

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

Planning Work Programs.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 66

Safety Performance

General Highway 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 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 754 751 781 784 745 817 829 914 880

Serious Injuries 3,455 3,404 3,823 3,453 3,338 3,434 3,505 3,388 3,210

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.000 0.980 0.990 1.000 0.940 1.040 0.997 1.118 1.064

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.560 4.451 4.844 4.409 4.215 4.357 4.234 4.145 3.827

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

78 85 84 87 94 109 106 116 140

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

337 322 321 395 285 279 285 297 265
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 66

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

3800

3900

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 66

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 66

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

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

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

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

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

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

measure in prior editions of the MMUCC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KABCO scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 66

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

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

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

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

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

contribution in that subset.

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

Crash data and Performance Target Setting methodology.

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

given year as follows:

FARS Final Report File for the preceding years through 2016

FARS Annual Report File for the year 2017 

Indiana State Police ARIES Crash reporting system for the year 2018

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

59 86 0.71 1.03

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

87 172 1.8 3.54

Rural Minor Arterial 80 195 2.25 5.42

Rural Minor Collector 27 117 1.32 5.81

Rural Major Collector 105 375 1.89 6.74

Rural Local Road or 

Street

130 238 2.51 4.6

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

37 194 0.32 1.67
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 66

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

14 42 0.97 2.9

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

81 793 0.74 7.21

Urban Minor Arterial 63 613 0.72 6.91

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 26 264 0.52 5.28

Urban Local Road or 

Street

112 244 0.8 1.75
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 66

Year 2017

Roadways Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

431.82 1,422.33 1.04 3.43

County Highway 

Agency

181.42 803.85 1 4.45

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

173.91 1,093 0.82 5.17

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Data Tables for 5 year averages from 2014 through 2018 have been adjusted for final approved VMT data and 

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

Additional Information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

performance counts in accord with “A” injuries on the KABCO scale.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Database.

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

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

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

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

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

In 2019, the early estimate of vehicle miles of travel increased by 0.50% above 2018 indicating a slowing in 

VMT growth. The number of police reported fatalities decreased by 3.72%. Suspected serious injuries 

decreased by 5.25%.

Statewide 2018 crash data shows that Indiana is experiencing conditions somewhat similar to surrounding 

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

Rate and Suspected Serious Injury Rate. In 2018, Indiana was part of a national trend indicating a small 

decrease in the number of serious crash events resulting in suspected serious and fatal injuries.

Lane departure crash events continue to be the most numerous harmful events in 2018. The continued risk of 

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

reducing the incidence of lane departure crashes. Widespread deployment of multiple countermeasures has 

resulted in small decreases in crashes resulting from vehicle departure from the travel lanes (including 

roadway departure, head-on and opposite direction sideswipe). The 5 year average of fatalities resulting from 

single vehicle lane departures in 2018 accounted for 40.67% of all Indiana motor vehicle fatalities, compared to 

the 5 year average of 42.7% in 2017, and 44.8% calculated in 2016.

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

event and is on a slight upward trend. In 2018 the 5 year average of intersection fatalities contributed 33.4% of 

total traffic fatalities, similar to the 33.0% average calculated in 2017 and 32.7% in 2016. INDOT is using HSIP 

funds to advance systemic improvements to increase the visibility of both signalized and un-signalized 

intersections along with a program to modernize traffic signal control equipment. INDOT is engaged in a 

program to “change-out” older 5 section heads used to control “permitted/protected” left turn traffic signal 

phasing for the MUTCD approved 4-section heads using a flashing yellow arrow for permissive left turns. 

INDOT also is promoting the use of its Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy to increasing the 

construction of innovative intersection design to reduce traffic conflicts such as Roundabouts, R-Cut/J-Turns 

and other Median U-Turn designs. In 2014, INDOT produced its ICE 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. Many of the resulting designs are now moving into 

the construction phase.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 66

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 local partners on education efforts as well as the 

deployment of countermeasures such as enhanced crosswalks, mid-block and intersection beacons and road 

diets.

In 2018 the 5 year rolling average rate of pedestrian involved serious crashes made up 5.3% of all serious 

crashes compared to 5.8% in 2017, and 6.3% calculated in 2016. While this trend is encouraging, the number 

of fatal pedestrian injuries has increased by 41.2% over the last 10 years. The 5 year average fatality count in 

2018 is 95 compared the 5 year count in 2008 of 67.

The construction of bike friendly facilities has led to higher numbers of bike users and pedestrians. When 

combined with growing VMT these conditions have led to many more conflicts between these modes of road 

users. Despite higher levels of exposure the 5 year average percentage of serious crashes in 2018 was 1.8% 

compared to 2.0% in 2017.

The 5 year average percentage of motorcycle and moped crashes has been on a general downward trend 

since 2016 when it accounted for 13.2 % of all serious crash outcomes. A one year spike in motorcycle 

crashes occurred in 2017. In 2018 the percentage of serious crash outcomes averaged over 5 years was at 

9.1%, down from 11.2% calculated in 2017.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:907.7

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

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

listed above is based on a projected calendar 2020 value of (965) as described in the following 

methodology. Baseline projections are calculated using fatality counts and applying an equation to 

generate predictive values for 2019-2020. This was accomplished by the software built into Microsoft 

Excel for applying a logarithmic trend line with a forward forecast of two years. The equation is of the 

form [y = A*ln(x) + B]. The resulting equation is then adjusted to more closely fit recent peak years by 

shifting the value of B to produce a matching value for the recorded peak. INDOT estimates seven 

fatalities annually may be influenced by every .1% change in annual unemployment. Recent 

economic forecasts indicate an additional decrease in annual unemployment of .2% during the 2018-

2020 period can be reasonably anticipated in Indiana. Consequently, the fatality count projections 

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

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

Number of Serious Injuries:3467.4

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

Data Source: Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES) 2009- 2013 the “As 

reported” count of “Incapacitating Injuries” 2014-2017 an estimated count amounting to 7.2% of all 

non-fatal injuries For the purpose of comparison to the SHSO annual report, the 5 year average 

performance target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2020 value of (3,628) as described 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 66

in the following methodology. Baseline projections are calculated using incapacitating injury counts 

(or estimations) and applying an equation to generate predictive values for 2014-2018. This was 

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

forward forecast of four years. The equation is of the form [y = A*ln(x) + B]. The resulting equation is 

then adjusted to more closely fit recent peak years by shifting the value of B to produce a matching 

value for the recorded peak.

Fatality Rate:1.100

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

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

2016. For the purpose of comparison to the SHSO annual report, the 5 year average performance 

target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2020 value of (1.154) as described in the 

following methodology. Estimated/Predicted values for 2018-2020: The FHWA approved VMT for 

2017 was significantly lower than the INDOT reported value there for an adjustment was made to the 

projection of annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) growth rate estimates. For 2018 a growth of 1.2% 

was used as in past years however for each of the next two years growth is estimated to be 1.05% to 

account for the effect on projections due to the last FHWA approved (2017) VMT of 817.52 hundred 

million VMT. INDOT’s Technical Planning Support & Programming Division estimates VMT by 

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

them. The Office of Traffic Safety uses those predicted annual estimates along with estimated 

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

fatality rates per 100-million VMT.

Serious Injury Rate:4.178

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

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

and reported values through 2013. Using estimated incapacitating injuries and the FHWA VMT values 

for 2014-2018. The 5 year average performance target listed above is based on a projected calendar 

2020 value of (4.342) as described in the following methodology. Estimated/Predicted values for 

2017-2020: The FHWA approved VMT for 2017 was significantly lower than the INDOT reported 

value there for an adjustment was made to the projection of annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

growth rate estimates. For 2018 a growth of 1.2% was used as in past years however for each of the

next two years growth is estimated to be 1.05% to account for the effect on projections due to the last 

FHWA approved (2017) VMT of 817.52 hundred million VMT. INDOT’s Technical Planning Support & 

Programming Division estimates VMT by averaging the last 5 years of Annual Growth Rates for each 

of five factor groups and then averaging them. The Office of Traffic Safety uses those predicted 

annual estimates for incapacitating injuries along with the projected VMTs for their respective future 

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

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:405.9

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

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

Count 2016-2017 FARS Annual Report File 2018 Indiana State Police FARS Report Data Source: 

Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES) (Non-motorist persons)* 2009-2013 the 
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 66

“As reported” count of “Incapacitating Injuries” 2014-2018 an estimated count amounting to 13% of all 

non-fatal injuries “The 5 year average performance target listed above is based on a projected 

calendar 2019 value of (420) as described in the following methodology.” Baseline projections of NonMotorist Fatalities are calculated using FARS Fatality counts and applying an equation to generate 

predictive values for 2018-2020. This was accomplished by the software built into Microsoft Excel for 

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

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

the value of B to produce a matching value for the recorded peak. Non-Motorist incapacitating injuries 

are projected logarithmically as above for 2019-2020 with non-motorist incapacitating injuries 

projected as 13% of projected all non-motorist non-fatal injuries. *In addition to persons classified as 

pedestrians or pedal-cyclists, persons classified as animal drawn vehicle operators are included in 

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

Indiana.

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

safety performance targets. 

Added Information: Following the promulgation of the new rule, in the fourth quarter of 2016 INDOT Office of 

Traffic Safety solicited a partnership group of Contributing/Consulting/Advisory Agencies and Organizations to 

coordinate setting the 5 safety performance targets. The Traffic Safety Performance Target Setting Team held 

seven meetings from July of 2016 through June of 2017 in-order to establish a procedure for calculation of the 

required annual safety performance targets. The traffic safety Performance Target Setting Team deliberated 

and ultimately agree upon both the methodology that was used to establish the traffic safety performance 

targets and the calendar 2018 targets.

Using the same procedures INDOT has calculated safety performance targets for calendar 2019 and 2020. A 

final agreement on each target that was set for calendar year 2020 was reached on May 23, 2019 between 

INDOT and the other members of the Traffic Safety Performance Target Setting Team including Indiana’s 

State Highway Safety Office (housed in the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute) on May 23, 2019.

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

Indiana Department of Transportation, Office of Traffic Safety

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

Indiana Metropolitan Planning Organization Council – Executive Director Task group

Federal Highway Administration, Indiana Division

Local Technical Assistance Program – HELPERS Program

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

report the three overlapping performance targets in their 2020 Highway safety Plan Report to NHTSA before 

the July 1, 2019 deadline.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Indiana does not choose to report on additional optional targets at this time.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 66

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

2018 Safety Performance Targets:

Fatalities - 814.9

Serious Injuries – 3479.8

Fatalities Rate - 1.036

Serious Injuries Rate - 4.347

Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries – 417.0

The 2018 five year average number of fatal injuries is calculated to be 837.0. The stated 2018 target of 814.9 

fatalities will not be met due to unpredictable weather conditions combined with continued growth in 

employment that combined led to a higher number of 914 fatalities in 2017 FARS data compared to recorded 

fatalities in 2016 of 829 and 880 recorded in 2018 from Indiana’s crash record system. The reduction in fatal 

injury count that occurred in 2018 did not result in a large enough drop to accommodate the recorded increase.

In 2017 an early mild spring and good summer weather may have contributed to an increase in the number of 

motorcycle/moped related fatal injuries. The number of motorcycle/moped related fatalities was 96 in 2016 

followed by 144 in 2017 a 50% increase. In 2018 recorded motorcycle/moped fatalities regressed to 84.

Analysis of unemployment data for the last 10 year time period indicates a linkage of job growth to VMT may 

be a factor influencing fatal injury counts in the time period after 2009. The results of a recent comparative 

analysis indicates that in the years 2010 through 2018, Indiana has experienced a general upward trend in 

VMT as well as a rise in the number of fatal injuries. Job growth data appears to track rather closely together 

with fatal injury counts. Therefore it’s logical to postulate that job growth may be a key factor influencing the 

higher than expected growth in fatal injuries.

The 2018 expected five year average fatalities rate is 1.032. This result is slightly below the 2018 target value 

of 1.036 fatalities per one hundred million vehicle miles of travel. The final result is dependent on the VMT 

values that FHWA applies in their calculation to be performed in 2020, but the expectation is that the target for 

fatality rate may be met.

The 2018 expected five year average of suspected serious injuries is 3375.3. The 2018 target for serious 

injuries is 3479.8. The result is 3% lower than the target. The expectation is that the performance target for 

serious injuries will be met. All classes of non-fatal injuries in Indiana have been on a gradual multiyear 

downward trend starting in 2004 and excepting short term spikes has continued through 2018. This is reflected 

in recent years by the reported number of suspected serious injuries dropping from 3,505 in 2016 to 3,210 in 

2018.

The 2018 expected five year average rate of suspected serious injuries is 4.157. The 2018 target rate for 

serious injuries is 4.347. The result is 4.6% lower that the target. The final result is dependent on the VMT 

values that FHWA applies in their calculation to be performed in 2020. The expectation is that the performance 

target for serious injury rate per one hundred million vehicle miles of travel will be met.

The 2018 resulting five year average number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is 381.51. The 

2018 target rate for non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is 417.0. The result is 9.3% lower that the 

target. The expectation is that the performance target for serious injuries will be met.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 66

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

Regarding the HRRR Special Rule requirement for Indiana, in FFY 2019 INDOT does not fall under the HRRR 

Special Rule.

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

100 106 103 99 109 116 117

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

267 257 252 255 275 308 285
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 66

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced)

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

and primary measure of effectiveness is the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries on all state and local 

public roadways in the state. In this regard, INDOT monitors the number and rate of fatal and serious injury 

crash events and casualties in determining progress Toward Zero Deaths. 

INDOT’s additional goal during fiscal year 2019 was to maintain integrity of a planned $50.7 million investment 

in the 2019 traffic safety capital program, toward achieving an expected reduction of at least 5,914 severe 

crashes on INDOT jurisdictional roads through the projects’ design lives. Essentially the goal over time to be 

maintained is the overall cost-effectiveness (C-E) of the program; that is, the relationship of dollars invested to 

crashes reduced, or $24,400 per severe crash as the baseline ratio at the start of the fiscal year.

This is a summary of results relative to the federal fiscal year 2019 goal. The safety program affected a slightly 

positive change in C-E, down to about $24,000 from $24,200 the prior year. Overall, the fiscal year 2019 

performance expectation was achieved. 

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

Change in fatalities and serious injuries:

The number of reported motor vehicle crash fatalities dropped from 914 in calendar year 2017 to 880 in 2018, 

which represents a decrease of 3.72%. The early estimate for 2018 vehicle miles of travel indicates an 

increase of 1.1% from 2017 to 2018. As a result the estimated rate of fatalities per one hundred million vehicle 

miles of travel (HMVMT) was also reduced by 4.8 % from 1.118 in 2017 to an estimated 1.064 in 2018.

The incidence of suspected serious injuries in 2017 was 3,388 in 2017 compared to 3,210 in 2018. This 

represents a 5.25% decrease in calendar year 2018 compared to 2017. The estimated rate of probable class 

‘A’ injury outcomes decreased by 7.7%, from 4.145 in 2017 to 3.827 in 2018.

Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced):

INDOT’s measure of effectiveness applies to a goal for safety improvement project cost per severe crash; 

those crash events resulting in at least one fatal or serious injury. This measure is intended to assure the 

integrity of the planned 2019 $50.7 million investment in the 2019 traffic safety capital program, toward 

achieving an expected reduction of at least 5,914 severe crashes on INDOT jurisdictional roads through the 

projects’ design lives. The goal over time is to maintain the overall cost-effectiveness of the program; that is, 

the relationship of dollars invested to crashes reduced, or $24,000 per severe crash as the baseline ratio at the 

start of the fiscal year.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 66

What other indicators of success does the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and 

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• More systemic programs

• Other-Total Federal Safety Obligations

58 RSA reports were completed in 2019 for State and US highways. Three of the RSA reports addressed of 

larger scale corridor safety evaluations. Many of the RSA’s will likely result in construction projects that use 

HSIP funds. LTAP and local public agencies also conduct numerous RSA's prior to submitting proposed 

projects to Office of Traffic Safety for HSIP eligibility determination.

85.2 % of the apportioned HSIP funds are scheduled to be obligated in 2019. 

INDOT maintains 25 individual work types eligible for HSIP funding split among our listed safety sub-programs.

In FFY 2019 INDOT obligated 100% of the infrastructure share of Indiana’s allocated Section 164-HE Penalty 

Transfer.

At the start of calendar 2019 INDOT approved Intersection Conflict Warning Systems as an eligible systemic 

safety project work type in our Intersection safety sub-program. Construction of ICW system installations are 

programmed to commence in 2020.

In FFY 2019 INDOT has over $72.6 million in federal aid highway safety funds including HSIP and Section 

164-HE funds programmed for obligation prior to the end of the federal fiscal year.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 400.4 1,032.56 0.49 1.27

Roadway Departure 277.8 647.75 0.34 0.8

Intersections 215.2 1,154.83 0.27 1.43

Pedestrians 95.6 214.65 0.12 0.26

Bicyclists 13.6 63.07 0.02 0.08

Motorcyclists 111 425.54 0.14 0.53

Work Zones 18.4 69.63 0.02 0.09

Data 836.6 3,383.28 1.03 4.18

Large Trucks 142.4 254.01 0.18 0.31
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 66

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 66

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 66

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0810159 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

308.00 237.00 2.00 8.00 23.00 49.00 19.00 367.00 279.00 0.789473684210526

1400212 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

432.00 407.00 4.00 5.00 15.00 54.00 127.00 50.00 578.00 516.00 1.14774494556765

1401308 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

49.00 52.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 16.00 4.00 68.00 63.00 0.672413793103448

0100445 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane57.00 56.00 16.00 11.00 73.00 67.00 1.25

0810118 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

461.00 408.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 41.00 80.00 45.00 552.00 495.00 0.527498323272971

0901702 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

37.00 56.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 43.00 60.00 4.4

1006118 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

31.00 106.00 1.00 7.00 21.00 11.00 15.00 49.00 143.00 0.433962264150943

1173409 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

13.00 20.00 1.00 2.00 15.00 21.00 0.760869565217391

1173410 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

205.00 196.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 31.00 37.00 35.00 248.00 265.00 0.358680260549419

1173414 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

86.00 108.00 6.00 14.00 5.00 100.00 119.00 0.202236266407389

1173439 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

148.00 135.00 1.00 6.00 17.00 37.00 15.00 192.00 167.00 0.67627580833658

1173673 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

120.00 123.00 3.00 11.00 50.00 79.00 43.00 213.00 216.00 0.511476264997392

1296260 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

344.00 371.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 40.00 98.00 62.00 450.00 479.00 0.85079575596817
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 66

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1296268 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

36.00 30.00 1.00 5.00 10.00 1.00 47.00 36.00 0.87030303030303

1296877 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

193.00 362.00 11.00 51.00 52.00 29.00 256.00 442.00 0.387416398315581

1296336 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1086.00 852.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 75.00 218.00 132.00 1317.00 1063.00 0.675765306122449

1400582 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

128.00 106.00 2.00 5.00 13.00 20.00 17.00 155.00 136.00 0.726668880770508

1296297 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

79.00 162.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 28.00 30.00 22.00 112.00 214.00 0.363364743737072

1401659 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 8.00 19.00 2.00 3.00 8.00 2.00 18.00 24.00 0.8915313225058

1296337 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

20.00 16.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 23.00 23.00 0.306545690213869

1296296 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

1781.00 1470.00 3.00 7.00 21.00 169.00 514.00 266.00 2319.00 1912.00 1.0168

1383068 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

450.00 634.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 21.00 204.00 206.00 662.00 864.00 0.740784780023781

1383253 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 101.00 160.00 5.00 30.00 28.00 11.00 134.00 201.00 0.344503710575139

1296912 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 514.00 621.00 16.00 12.00 49.00 184.00 205.00 95.00 784.00 912.00 0.415940033654582

1296921 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

65.00 74.00 5.00 7.00 30.00 32.00 100.00 113.00 0.846130221130221

1296934 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

70.00 69.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 15.00 31.00 6.00 107.00 91.00 0.590068525298038

1382687 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

20.00 38.00 12.00 3.00 3.00 23.00 53.00 0.225806451612903

1296334 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

10.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 16.00 9.00 0.861127956337174

1382688 Urban 

Principal 

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

106.00 85.00 1.00 8.00 21.00 8.00 127.00 102.00 0.981753674607197
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 66

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

1382689 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

45.00 60.00 1.00 6.00 9.00 6.00 7.00 58.00 76.00 0.858695652173913

1382690 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

36.00 40.00 5.00 16.00 8.00 2.00 49.00 58.00 0.721033210332103

1382691 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

19.00 37.00 1.00 6.00 9.00 9.00 29.00 52.00 0.742092457420925

1383101 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossing 

gates

1

1382692 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

19.00 32.00 2.00 10.00 4.00 9.00 25.00 51.00 0.45299727520436

1382693 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

30.00 27.00 5.00 7.00 2.00 1.00 37.00 35.00 0.990496304118268

1383254 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadside Barrier- metal 10.00 7.00 3.00 1.00 13.00 8.00 1.69230769230769

1401012 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

975.00 928.00 8.00 8.00 14.00 3.00 127.00 40.00 1124.00 979.00 1.82974594213126

1401166 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

37.00 46.00 2.00 8.00 12.00 5.00 51.00 59.00 0.610586011342155

1401172 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1507.00 1932.00 6.00 6.00 24.00 139.00 253.00 117.00 1790.00 2194.00 0.445702465842905

1401174 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

13.00 15.00 1.00 14.00 15.00 1.29807692307692

1173396 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

250.00 234.00 2.00 2.00 24.00 32.00 7.00 286.00 265.00 0.437508866505887
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1173467 Urban Minor 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

103.00 130.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 21.00 69.00 10.00 179.00 162.00 0.660776160776161

1382938 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1850.00 2509.00 6.00 4.00 42.00 134.00 288.00 256.00 2186.00 2903.00 0.613512006772522

1383061 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

999.00 1406.00 4.00 4.00 40.00 142.00 196.00 152.00 1239.00 1704.00 0.422344842460952

1383188 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

8920.00 11098.00 11.00 21.00 154.00 43.00 1248.00 742.00 10333.00 11904.00 1.410980136232

1400869 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

250.00 323.00 2.00 3.00 11.00 27.00 27.00 7.00 290.00 360.00 0.573244895386942

1400970 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

28.00 56.00 15.00 13.00 58.00 137.00 183.00 79.00 284.00 285.00 0.589702296569322

1296267 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

230.00 168.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 3.00 68.00 58.00 309.00 230.00 1.54195323246217

1172182 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA)

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

227.00 247.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 55.00 70.00 287.00 321.00 0.964912280701754

In general the implementation of projects result in a reduced risk for fatalities and in most cases serious injuries as well. This isn’t always apparent in the naïve cost effectiveness analysis of serious injury counts due to the reclassification 

of incapacitating injuries that took place in 2014. Due to the need to use incapacitating injuries in the cost effectiveness MOE results tend to be skewed toward lower post construction cost savings. This issue will resolve as data from the 

new ARIES 6.0 officer reporting software replaces incapacitating injuries with type “A” serious injury crash data.

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

The combined efforts of Indiana’s engineering, education, law enforcement, and emergency medical communities all contribute to the goal of overall decline in serious crash outcomes. However, in recent years, national and regional 

trends of larger total crash counts have occurred. High employment rates have remained strong over the last several years and has been a major factor influencing fatal and serious injury crash occurrence in that time frame.

The extent of contribution by HSIP projects to overall statewide traffic safety outcomes is difficult to quantify with available data sources and analysis capabilities, but it’s likely that safety programs are a factor influencing the frequency of 

severe crash outcomes. Fatal and injury crash trends experienced a somewhat consistent downward trend between the start of SAFETEA-LU in 2005 and continuing through 2008 before experiencing a large drop in 2009 at the same 

time as VMT estimates declined. From year 2010 through 2014, the downward trend resumed until strong growth in estimated VMT and serious crashes occurred in 2015 through the first half of 2018. After that time the growth rate of 

serious outcome crashes slowed along with growth in VMT.

The number of reported motor vehicle crash fatalities spiked to 914 in calendar year 2017 but then declined to 880 in 2018, which represents a decrease of 3.72%. The incidence of suspected serious injuries in most of the monitored 

emphasis areas decreased by 5.25% in calendar year 2018 compared to 2017, however, the early estimate for 2018 vehicle miles of travel shows an increase of 1.1% from 2017 to 2018. This shift in crash severity is difficult to explain on 

the basis of employment rate which remains strong. 

Note that part of the 2017 spike in fatalities is attributable motorcycle riders. The weather conditions in winter/spring of 2018 experienced more wet days compared to 2017 making travel by motorcycle less attractive.

Page 59 of 66
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 66

The resulting rate of crashes with fatality per million vehicle miles of travel decreased by 4.8%. Due to the estimated VMT, the rate of serious crashes involving probable class A injury outcomes decreased by 7.7%. While recent 

decreases in serious injuries and fatalities are encouraging, INDOT seeks to continue the downward trend by increasing the number and variety of systemic safety programs applicable to both state and local roads.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 66

Compliance Assessment

What date was the State’s current SHSP approved by the Governor or designated State representative? 

 03/01/2016

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2016 To: 2020

When does the State anticipate completing it’s next SHSP update? 

 2021

Due to different fiscal year end dates, the current SHSP applies to state fiscal years 2017 through 2021.

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 20

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100

Access Control (22) 100
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 66

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 20

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 50

AADT Year (80) 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100

AADT Year (80) 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp

Terminal (197)

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100

Ramp Length (187) 100
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 66

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100

Interchange Type 

(182)

100

Ramp AADT (191) 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100

Functional Class 

(19)

100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 0.00 87.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 76.67 0.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

No change in data collection strategy or percentages have been reported by the INDOT Planning Inventory Office in FFY 2019.

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 

For the Non-Local Paved road requirements, INDOT currently maintains all MIRE Required Elements as part of the annual HPMS report.

For the Local Paved Roads requirements, INDOT has full coverage of most required elements with the exception of Surface Type and in some cases Lane Count. A new funding program created through Indiana House Bill 1002 that has 

recently been passed that allocates funding utilized by Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) to create and maintain road data for Local Government Agencies. The plan is to leverage this effort to fill in gaps in coverage on local 

roads for any fully or partially missing elements.

Unpaved Roads are currently not identified in INDOT’s inventory data system. However, route information such as Route Identifier, Beginning Measure, End Measure, Functional Class and Type of Government Ownership are present 

and accounted for in the current data system. Once Surface Type data form local agencies is incorporated, as described above, unpaved roads will be identified in the inventory system.

INDOT currently has the data to support the creation of data elements for the Intersections of

Non-Local Paved Roads. The Road Inventory Office is currently acquiring spatial analysis software that will automate the creating and management of Intersection Geometries and supporting data.

INDOT has data to support the creation of data elements for the Interchanges\Ramps on Non-Local Paved Roads. Information can be created using the same planned software tools acquisition to be used for managing intersections and 

Interchanges/Ramps. Other data requirements will need to be determined once the spatial analysis tool is operational. If there is a need for additional data that can’t be extracted using those tools, new geoprocessing tools will have to be 

created by INDOT to meet the requirements.
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 66

An official representative\authority to manage all MIRE FDE requirements has not yet been named, however an ad-hoc committee containing representatives from the Technical Services Division, Road Inventory Office, Management 

Information Systems Division, Traffic Engineering Division - Office of Traffic Safety, will deliberate the necessary lines of authority.

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

No

The last HSIP program assessment took place in FY 2017, The event took place in December of 2016 as a peer-program assessment of Indiana’s HSIP conducted with FHWA engineers from the Headquarters’ Office of Safety and three 

peer states. The peer team reviewed Indiana’s guiding HSIP documents. The FHWA Peer-Program Review Team visited Indianapolis to interview the numerous offices that contribute to the highway safety program in Indiana. Details of 

the program assessment are contained in the Indian HSIP Peer-Program Review document dated February 10, 2017.

The purpose of the review was to allow an outside look of Indiana’s HSIP and determine:

1) Noteworthy Practices, and

2) Opportunities for Improvements.

As with most any review activity, the intent of the review was to not only fulfill the requirement of a law, regulation, or oversight document, in this case FHWA’s National Program Stewardship and Oversight Plan, but, more importantly, to 

provide the State DOT with an objective appraisal of its HSIP and identify strengths and areas for improvement.

During the peer-program review, the team identified several practices and procedures in which INDOT exceled. These areas include:

Development of timely crash data and statistically-based data analysis tools.

Communication and coordination with safety partners (e.g. LTAP, ICJI, MPOs, Districts)

Consistent, up-to-date crash facts published weekly via the Crash Snapshot

Emphasis on systemic projects types

Development of a 5-year program of projects

The program assessment team also noted some areas in which further development could improve the effectiveness of the HSIP in Indiana. These areas can be summarized into the following:

Documentation – Develop a combined HSIP Manual and Procedures document

Data – Continue to upgrade crash reporting tools, quality assurance and MIRE FDE data

Local Road Safety – Improve call procedures and administration of local projects 

Funding – Strategies to address rising balances of apportioned safety funds

Safety Performance Targets – Methodology to set Safety Performance Targets.

(Task Completed before July 1, 2017)

Details of these findings can be seen in the sections titled Noteworthy Practices and Opportunities for Improvement.

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2021
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 66

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 66

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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