Page 1 of 75

INDIANA

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 75

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence............................................................. 3

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................29

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................29

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................40

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................40

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................49

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................55

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................56

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................56

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................57

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................62

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................70

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................74

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................75
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 75

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. 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.”
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 75

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) 2021. 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 FHWA Online Reporting Tool (ORT) system requires that the status 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 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 2021, beginning October 1, 2020, and ending on September 30, 2021. 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.

The number of reported motor vehicle crash fatalities increased from 809 in calendar year 2019 to 896 in 2020, 

which represents an increase of 10.75% over the previous year causing the 5 year rolling average to also 

increase by 1.87%. The early estimate for 2020 vehicle miles of travel indicates a decrease of approximately 

7.01% from 2019 to 2020. As a result, the estimated rate of fatalities per one hundred million vehicle miles of 

travel (HMVMT) also increased by 19.12% for the year and 2.51% for the 5 year average.

In 2020, the count of Suspected Serious Injuries (SSI) was 3,302, while the SSI number for 2019 was 3,062. 

This indicates a one year rise of 7.83%, apparently interrupting a multiyear downward trend from a high of 

3,505 in 2016. However, the 2020 rise in SSI does not interrupt the downward trend in the 5 year average with 

a decrease of 0.8% compared to the previous 5 year average.

It must be noted that conclusions regarding suspected serious injury trends shouldn’t be drawn from the 2020 

data for two reasons. First the unusually low VMT due to the Covid pandemic resulted in unusual travel 

patterns that may have been a contributing factor that led to more fatal and serious injury outcomes versus all 

injury outcomes for much of 2020. Also, 2020 is the first year that a new method of directly counting suspected 

serious injuries was employed. Changes to the Indiana electronic crash records database, herein referred to as 

AIRIES allowed INDOT to directly count officer’s subjective selection of the FHWA defined Class A injury types 

for each person, (referred to herein as injury natures). The result is a discontinuity in the data due to the shift to 

a new permanent counting procedure.

The definition used to set the new regulation for reporting traffic safety performance measures was established 

in the MMUCC 4th Edition. This compelled Indiana to determine a method to approximate the counting of 

Suspected Serious Injuries so that Indiana’s crash records system could be used to calculate historic and 

projected traffic safety performance counts in accord with “A” injuries on the KABCO scale. In order to continue 

to report suspected serious injuries in the interim, a temporary methodology for estimating a count of persons 

with suspected serious injuries was in use from 2014 until the end of 2019. The method utilized an adjustment 

factor for all injuries as a proxy for missing injury nature types as described in the response to question 30. 

Indiana received approval from FHWA to use the factor 7.2% of all non-fatal injuries as an interim method until 

changes were completed in the ARIES crash database allowing a direct count of the MMUCC defined injury 

natures descriptions that FHWA defined as suspected serious injuries. In the latter part of 2019 new data 

elements were in place in the ARIES officer’s crash reporting system that would allow for a specific count of 

MMUCC 4th Edition compliant data.

A new Indiana Officers Crash Reporting Tool was created by the crash database vendor working under 

contract with the owner agency of the crash database, the Indiana State Police. In the third quarter of 2019 the 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 75

same vendor included the required injury types in both the existing and new crash reporting tools. In spring of 

2021 a compliance review by FHWA resulted in corrected definitions for the seven suspected serious injury 

nature descriptions being updated in the new reporting tool data dictionary, the new officers reporting software 

and officer training procedures. Training of all sworn Indiana police officers in use of the new crash reporting 

tool is ongoing with the crash database vendor estimating completion by the end of 2021. However, starting 

with 2020 INDOT has begun reporting suspected serious injuries according to current MMUCC 4th and 5th 

Edition requirements. INDOT decided to count persons identified by the suspected serious injury nature 

descriptions in order to complete by the end of 2024, a phased rollout of the officer reported injury nature data 

for the 5 year rolling averages so that suspected serious injury reporting may commence populated with officer 

collected data.

The shift in crash severity witnessed in 2020 is difficult to explain on the basis of employment rate which 

experienced a decline in 2020. In prior years, employment rate had been found to be a major factor influencing 

serious crash outcomes. However, in 2020 other as yet undetermined factors associated with the pandemic 

had a large influence on crash and injury severity outcomes. Further research into the interaction of these 

factors is needed to understand how travel conditions and driver reactions have changed, and if these changes 

are permanent or will return to a more recognizable pattern.

FHWA should 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, the Covid pandemic, 

economic change, technology proliferation, and weather.

In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021, 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 $73.3 million. The planned federal obligation total exceeds the $55.6 million apportionment of HSIP 

funds. In addition, $21.5 million was obligated to safety projects from other federal aid programs. All projects 

approved for funding in HSIP, HRRRP and the Section 164-HE are required to address at least one of the 

emphasis areas defined in the Indiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Indiana is also under a Section 164-HE transfer that must be obligated before the end of the fiscal year, 

therefore obligation of these funds during the year are a higher priority compared to HSIP funds. Under the 

Obligation Limitation for federal fiscal year 2021, the minimum Section 164-HE obligation is $16.6 million. To 

date, INDOT has obligated $18.8 million of Section 164-HE in FY 2021. INDOT is currently increasing efforts to 

obligate all available federal safety dollars.

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 documentation that 

describes INDOT’s countermeasure selection methodology originally took place in September of 2008 with the 

submission of the FFY 2008 HSIP/HRRRPReport. 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, 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 titledHighway Safety Improvement 

Program Local Project Selection Guidance, was issued on December 1, 2010, and updated on March 20, 

2014. Also,Special Rules for Eligibility of Highway Safety Improvement Projects, issued August 1, 2013, 
Page 6 of 75

2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

described the selection methodology for local HSIP projects. INDOT is currently engaging with multiple partner 

agencies and groups to revise the Indiana’s current 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 2020 the set aside for locally sponsored safety

projects was approximately $19.04 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. TheHighway Safety Improvement Program Local Project 

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

and HRRRP project funding. 

In addition, the HELPERS program based at the Indiana LTAP is tasked with providing advice and assistance

to rural roadway agencies with data management, analysis, and RSA facilitation. INDOT also maintains a webbased information source on the various state safety initiatives to assist users in determining the best 

countermeasures for deployment to achieve effective safety improvement projects. Information regarding local 

safety programs, is also accessible at,http://www.in.gov/indot/2357.htm.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 75

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 Highway System program: The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is part of the Traffic engineering 

Division. OTS leads INDOT’s coordinated efforts to identify locations with elevated safety needs, plan 

infrastructure improvements, manage safety assets to prioritize and program traffic safety improvement 

projects on the Indiana State system of highways. OTS works with each of INDOT’s six district offices, as well 

as the divisions of Design, Technical Planning, Local Public Agency & Grant Administration, Capital Asset 

Management Project Finance, and the other Traffic Engineering Offices.

To facilitate identification of potential safety improvement projects, OTS conducts an annual network wide 

safety 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 tasked with an annual process prioritizing all 

proposed safety projects located on the INDOT system of highways. OTS and the six INDOT district traffic 

engineering offices act as voting members of the team. The Program Finance Group provides coordination 

between INDOT’s other asset teams and with executive management while the Traffic Engineering Division 

coordinates with the districts Technical Services Divisions regarding project programming and any significant 

changes to estimated project cost or scope. 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.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 75

Local Roads 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 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) 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.

To assist selection of local HSIP projects, guidance and outreach efforts are routinely made by INDOT and the 

Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). 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 that seek 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? 

 Operations

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

Traffic Engineering Division in the Operations – Strategic Planning Business Unit. The primary functions of the 

Office of Traffic Safety are planning, prioritization and analysis in support of the HSIP in the state of Indiana.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Formula via MPOs

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Process as described in the response under Question 3.

Local Roads 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 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 with an update published in 

2014. In August of 2013, 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), regarding 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 

fatalities or suspected serious injuries. Systemic projects are gaining increasing acceptance by LPAs. 

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 theHazard Elimination Project for Local Roads and Streets (HELPERS). The HELPERS Program 

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

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

and risk of severe crashes on public roadways.

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

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

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

funding.

Page 9 of 75
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 75

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-Research

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.

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 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 along with a single member of 

OTS act as a seven-person voting group. The Traffic Safety Asset Management Team acts to deliberate the 

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

recommended list of projects by fiscal year and the allocation of proposed obligation authority for all asset 

programs including safety is under authority of the Program Management Group. 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). The six district’s team members coordinate the 

approved list of selected projects with their respective district Funds Managers to facilitate programming. The 

districts also manage design, permitting and construction of projects in coordination with INDOT Design and 

Construction Divisions, via a project manager assigned to the project to coordinate all project development 

tasks. 

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

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

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

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

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

coordinate development of the construction project.

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

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

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

Transportation Research Project (JTRP) and to plan implementation of successful research products.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 75

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)

• Other-Various County Engineers

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

Council and other stakeholders. Two primary SHSP partners are the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute which 

houses the Indiana State Highway Safety Office (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 

calibrated safety planning analysis tools for INDOT and its local partners. The Purdue University Center for 

Road Safety works with OTS under the JTRP structure to produce an annual Network Safety Screening 

Process that provides preliminary substantive versus nominal crash risk assessment of each intersection and 

road segment on the INDOT roadway network.

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.

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 (LRSP). Currently three counties have approved plans, and three other counties and one MPO 

are at various stages of achieving a draft plan, Presentations have been made to the Indiana County Engineer 

Association and the MPO Council to solicit other counties and MPOs to begin efforts to begin an LRSP 

process. In addition, a Safety Planning Workshop was held virtually in June 2020 to educate numerous local 

agencies in safety planning strategies and data analysis.

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

of Indiana-specific safety planning analysis tools and assessing safety countermeasures new to INDOT and its 

local partners.

INDOT OTS 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.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 75

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

elaborate. 

In response to the increased HSIP apportionments under the 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 OTS 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 an HSIP eligible local project is approved for programming by the Division of LPA and Grant 

Administration, that division 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 by fiscal year and monitoring progress 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. Contract letting is administered by the INDOT Construction Management 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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 75

• Horizontal Curve

• 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-programs 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 while the program 

titled “Other, Traffic Signal Visibility” has a specific focus on replacement and adjustments to traffic signal 

heads to improve their visibility to drivers.

Note that Indiana was not subject to the High-Risk Road special rule in fiscal year 2021.

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 

• All crashes

• 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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 75

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

Bicycle safety projects are identified and proposed for HSIP funding both by INDOT and by local agencies as 

part of their non-motorized program planning due to concern that exposure to motorvehicles increases 

probability of bike involved crashes. Selection of road segments are often the result of data analysis efforts by 

an MPO or LTAP HELPERS. Projects proposed by INDOT are prioritized by the Office of Traffic Safety and the 

relevant INDOT district office during the annual asset management process. Typically bike lanes are installed 

as part of road diets either by reallocation of travel and auxiliary turn lanes and/or by elimination of on-street 

parking

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 75

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

Yes

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

Proposed projects on the State’s Highway network are primarily identified by annual network safety screening 

of previous crash history but may also be identified from citizen input. Typically, the curved road sections are 

depicted graphically on a heat map and by listing with crash risk indexes Likely candidates for improvement 

projects are prioritized by the relevant INDOT district office according to risk for future lane departure crashes. 

Projects are identified to the Traffic Safety Asset Team under the budgeted amount for that district’s systemic 

HSIP funding allotment. 

Local agencies may identify local road curves as part of proposed systemic curve safety projects. The LTAP 

HELPERS Program often assists county highway agencies in determining road segments at elevated risk of 

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

their planning areas. Counties that have a road segment identified in a Local Road Safety Plan or other action 

plan are given a high priority. Typically, enhanced warning devices and pavement markings are installed. 

Safety Edge is part of INDOT standards for new pavement and resurfacing and is recommended to local 

agencies. High Friction Surface Treatment may also be included where existing friction or pavement is lower 

than acceptable. Less frequently, new guardrail installations may be constructed to meet roadside safety 

standards.

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 75

• 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 

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

Intersection Safety Improvement projects may consist of either site specific “Spot” safety improvements 

involving addition of turn lanes or reconfiguration of an entire intersection to construct roundabout, reduced 

conflict or other innovative designs. However, the majority of intersections are treated with lower cost systemic 

safety improvements including un-signalized intersection visibility features for two-way stop controlled 

intersections, increased visibility stop signs or traffic signal heads as described below. INDOT is also in the 

early stages of assessing newly installed intersection Conflict Warning Systems (CWS) at a number of 

intersections. If found to be practical and effective CWS may become an approved systemic work type. Also, 

one county highway agency installed the first conflict warning system in Indiana about 3 years ago.

Intersections on the State Highway network are typically identified by INDOT’s annual network safety 

screening process, but some intersections are identified by citizen input or known land use developments that 

are determined to increase exposure to crash risk. State network projects are proposed for programming by 

the INDOT district offices to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritization according to a project scoring 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 75

methodology that rates various factors including relative future crash risk, and cost effectiveness of the 

proposed countermeasures.

Local agencies identify intersection safety improvements for spot improvement projects. Some local agencies 

utilize low cost systemic intersection safety countermeasures that can include oversize signs, enhances 

special markings or flashing beacons. Rural local agency projects are prioritized by INDOT while MPOs 

prioritize proposed projects within their planning areas.

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• 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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 75

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

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. The LTAP 

HELPERS Program (similar to a Safety Circuit Rider) typically assists rural local agencies and rural planning 

agencies RPOs in identifying appropriate safety improvement projects and conducting road safety 

assessments. Local agencies then submit applications for candidate projects to receive HSIP funding eligibility 

that is determined by the INDOT Office of Traffic Safety. Priority for setting the contract fiscal year is 

determined by the INDOT Division of Local Public Agencies and Grants along with the relevant INDOT district 

office.

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 75

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. 

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

Median Barrier projects are conducted under this sub program to reduce the severity of cross median 

crashes. While available for systemic installation on local roads, the majority of projects in this sub-program are 

cable barrier systems that are constructed on state network roadways with depressed grass medians of 

adequate width to accommodate the larger deflections that can occur with cable barriers. Medians that are 

narrower than 40 feet wide may need to be treated with two faced steel guardrails

On INDOT system highways, project identification and prioritization are conducted by INDOT Office of Traffic 

Safety in conjunction with INDOT's six district traffic engineering officess. Local agencies are also afforded the 

ability to apply for HSIP project eligibility for median barrier systemic projects, but to date this has not 

happened.

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 75

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 

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

Pedestrian safety projects are identified and proposed for HSIP funding both by INDOT and by local agencies 

as part of their non-motorized program planning due to exposure probability 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 curb ramps and connecting sidewalks, median refuge areas and/or 

hybrid beacons or RRFBs are installed as the primary countermeasures. INDOT also programs curb ramp 

projects to enhance pedestrian safety and meet ADA requirements using HSIP or other funds to systemically 

upgrade road corridors or on local systems areas for equitable pedestrian safety and accessibility.

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 75

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 

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

Roadway Departure crashes result in the largest number of fatal and severe injury outcomes on most rural 

road systems. For this reason, the Roadway Departure program utilizes a wider set of countermeasures than 

most subprograms. Countermeasures can consist of the aforementioned cable barrier installed on depressed 

grass medians, edgeline rumble stripes described below, enhanced pavement marking and signs, correction to 

curve superelevation, placement of high friction surface treatment on curves, as well as INDOT’s systematic 

deployment of safety edge as part if it’s agency wide paving program. In addition, site specific curve 

realignment projects may be constructed where adequate sight distance can’t be achieved by other means. All 

of the above countermeasures are eligible for HSIP funding for both state and local agency project 

construction.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 75

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

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 75

Cost Effectiveness:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Sign Replacement projects to upgrade the condition and retroreflectivity of regulatory and warning signs are 

exclusively local agency sponsored safety improvements since state network roadway signs are part of the 

INDOT sign maintenance program. On rural road systems proposed projects are typically identified by local 

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

HELPERS program lends out retro-reflectometers by request to local agencies if testing is desired, however 

sign reflectance degradation is typically identified by observation.

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.

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 75

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Cost Effectiveness:50

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

Total Relative Weight:100

Center and Edgeline Rumble Stripe projects are predominantly programed by INDOT although the systemic 

program is available to local agencies. Projects on the State’s Highway network are identified by annual 

network safety screening and are proposed to the Traffic Safety Asset Team for prioritization by INDOT 

districts according to relative risk for future lane departure crashes. 

Center and edgeline rumble stripe safety improvement projects typically coincide with the pavement 

resurfacing program, but the work type is also recommended for retrofit on existing pavements when the need 

is determined to supersede the paving schedule. The INDOT Pavement Division is supplied with heat maps of 

road segments with higher incidence of head on and sideswipe crashes. The decision to include centerline and 

or edgeline rumble is determined through coordination between the district paving and traffic engineers.

Local agencies may also apply for HSIP eligibly to mill rumble stripes although this option is rarely exercised 

on high speed rural local roads. It’s hoped that more local rumble stripe projects will result from efforts to 

increase the use of Local Safety plans.

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
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 75

• 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 

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

Traffic Signal Visibility is a systemic improvement type. Projects are a subset of the Intersection Safety 

program. State highway signalized intersections are identified by annual network safety screening. The primary 

countermeasure is the installation of high contrast traffic signal heads with backing plates and reflective strips, 

however left turn lanes may also include installation of 4 section signal heads with flashing yellow arrow for 

permitted phasing where an engineering study has found that to be appropriate. The four section signal heads 

also allow the capability to program protected only and protected/permitted phases according to traffic demand 

and safety need by time of day or pedestrian demand.

Although not part of the title this subprogram also addresses the visibility of principally rural un-signalized 

intersections as well. As with signalized intersections, identification is by annual network screening but in the 

case of rural intersections the screening process is supplemented with observation of intersection sight 

distance deficiencies. Local agencies may also utilize both signalized and non-signalized visibility 

countermeasures.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 68

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 75

• Other-Pedestrian Curb Ramps and Crosswalks

• Rumble Strips

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

• Upgrade Guard Rails

The Total Programmed HSIP Obligations for FFY 2021 was $54,415,523. The resulting Total Systemic HSIP 

Obligations are expected to be $37,054,203.

The program goal for the INDOT safety program 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 does not contribute to HSIP spending. 

Also a portion of centerline and edgeline rumble stripe construction is also performed as part of INDOT’s 

paving program, not using HSIP funds

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Stakeholder input

A Road Safety Assessment (RSA) is typically used to determine eligibility for site specific “spot” improvement 

needs. An RSA report may identify either eligible “near term” improvements that may be constructed with 

available systemic safety funds and / or may identify a more capital intense spot improvement projects that 

require longer term project programming and significant design effort before deployment. In some cases, both 

approaches are used to mitigate crash risk in the intervening time while a larger scale project is developed for 

contract letting.

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 research studies utilize funding other than the HSIP. INDOT considers various ITS 

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

not currently made through the HSIP.

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

No 

INDOT has developed data driven analysis tools named RoadHAT and SNIP that are similar/equivalent to the 

HSM that supports data driven decision making under the HSIP. The INDOT process was developed prior to 

release of the HSM and makes extensive use of crash cost to categorize future crash risk by consideration of a 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 75

crash severity index along with a crash frequency index. Indiana has a set of calibrated Crash Reduction 

Factors in RoadHAT 4.1 and Safety Performance Functions (SPFs). INDOT recommends to users of the state 

level software tools to consult the CMF Clearinghouse to determine appropriate CRFs for all countermeasures 

not currently calibrated for Indiana roadways. Indiana does not currently use the Safety Analyst software tool.

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 has been completed by Purdue 

Center for Road Safety to support IHSDM analysis.

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 and 

site specific safety improvements. The process is currently oriented toward mitigation of severe outcome crash 

risk at those intersections, ramps, or road segments that experience an elevated history of severe crash 

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

specific locations with elevated crash risks and corridors with high potential for severe crashes that may be 

mitigated by deployment of a particular type of systemic improvement. Locations of concern may also be 

identified for analysis and possible project prioritization 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) 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 Technical Services Division offices. 

The Asset Management process that is used to prioritize programming of 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 is chaired by the OTS manager and consists 

of a voting representative from OTS and the six INDOT District Traffic Engineers. Each year the TSAM team 

meets to deliberate the prioritization for selection of candidate projects including both spot and systemic safety 

improvements. The goal is production of cost constrained lists of safety improvement projects that are 

programmed for construction in each year of the ongoing 5 year asset planning 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 and road inventory data as well as consideration of 

cost effectiveness of the proposed solution. Project scoring procedures are reviewed and adjusted by TSAM 

committee vote each year prior to collecting and scoring candidate projects for the next asset management 

cycle.

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 

(PMG). The PMG 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 exists for use by project design managers and program funding managers 

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

changes to individual project intent, budget, or scheduled construction fiscal year. Beginning in FFY 2018, the 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 75

OTS manager was assigned authority to concur with or deny proposed changes to safety asset project scope, 

cost, or construction year under INDOT's Change Management Application process along with mangers over 

design and financial supervision.

Regarding programming of safety projects on the local road system, individual LPAs may propose future 

projects for HSIP funding through two methods that rely on the type of regional planning system existing in 

their 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 and project approval by INDOT. Rural 

LPAs are asked to first work with the Indiana LTAP HELPERS Program that acts to advise the LPA and any 

local regional planning organization (RPO) regarding identification and safety improvement priorities for that 

area. The HELPERS Program staff can pre-screen applications for compliance with federal and state 

regulations. The HELPERS Program also provides out-reach with valuable data analysis services and can 

advise the LPAs regarding best practices to achieve improved traffic safety, can facilitate the conduct of 

appropriate RSA procedures, and maintains a listing of individuals who are trained and willing to participate on 

local road RSA teams. The HELPERS program also provides training and outreach on best practices for safety 

planning and maintenance practices available to all LPAs in the state.

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 aforementioned application package is an INDOT provided HSIP 

application form that provides the necessary eligibility information for a predetermined list of systemic safety 

project types. Therefore, application for eligibility to produce systemic safety improvements is streamlined to 

facilitate the selection of known proactive safety improvements.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 75

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) $49,989,177 $54,415,523 108.85%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $86,118 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $18,847,191 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $29,217 0%

State and Local Funds $4,998,912 $5,190,722 103.84%

Totals $54,988,089 $78,568,771 142.88%

Obligated program totals include planned transfers from Advance Construction (AC) to the HSIP, HRRRP and 

164-HE programs that were awarded in federal fiscal 2021. Program total for State and Local fund obligations

include funds used to match obligated HSIP funds State funded safety projects and $2,387,579 of Indiana Toll

Road Lease Proceeds that were obligated to projects in the northern tier of Indiana counties previously

identified for use of HSIP funds. Amounts listed in the question 23 table reflect obligated funds totals at the

time of reporting. If transfers of project obligations from AC to HSIP do not occur before October 1, 2020, the

funds may continue to appear as un-obligated until the end of the federal fiscal year. Changes in the obligation

totals from AC to the HSIP program may occur after the October 1 date.

With the addition of the Section 164 Penalty Fund requirement, in fiscal year 2021 the total obligation of HSIP 

eligible funds is estimated to be $78,568,771 or 144.39% 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?

33%

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

24%
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 75

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 2021 is $18,355,886.

In FFY 2021 the projected total obligation of funds to construct local safety projects is expected to be 

$13,494,208. This amount is 24.26% of the total federal apportionment or 73.5% of local agency HSIP 

allocation.

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

$288,651

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

$511,031

HSIP funding has been obligated to fund for a period of 4 years, the operation of the Hazard Elimination

Program for Existing Roads and Streets (HELPERS) Program managed by the Indiana Local Technical 

Assistance Program. The funding for HELPERS is programmed at $288,651 for FFY 2021. The total noninfrastructure obligation for 2021 includes safety planning actions conducted by MPOs that are funded using 

HSIP finds under their Uniform Annual Work Plans submitted to the FHWA division office for approval.

Technical assistance activities conducted by the HELPERS program for rural LPAs include local agency safety 

planning support, data collection, systemic analysis, site specific analysis and advice including facilitating and 

participating in local Road Safety Assessment (RSA) teams and providing data analysis support for 

development of Local Road Safety Plans.

MPOs may utilize up to 15% of allocated HSIP funds for safety program planning activities. In FFY 2021 MPOs 

programmed $222,380.00 for non-infrastructure safety planning actions in their Uniform Annual Work Plans. 

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?

$17,376,389

In FFY 2021 INDOT transferred about $17.4 million from the 2021 HSIP apportionment. In federal fiscal 2021, 

INDOT transferred an additional $25.6 million in fiscal 2020 apportionment. Additionally, after last year's report 

was submitted INDOT transferred $10 million from the fiscal 2019 apportionment. Per the Project Accounting 

and Finance Division, in order to spend all federal funding under the obligation limitation in 2021, it was 

deemed necessary to shift funding between to different pots in order to accomplish that. Projects that are in 

temporary inactive status, award/request amounts, and current expenditures can play into that decision.

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 risk of fatal and suspected serious injuries 

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 are to 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 history of crashes over a defined multi-year period. However, under changing 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 75

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 somewhat 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 may not be prioritized for 

obligation due to an inability to meet traditional cost effectiveness criteria. Limited guidance regarding the 

application of risk factors relative to cost effectiveness can also have the effect of stifling innovation toward 

acceptance of new types of crash countermeasures. Improved guidance by FHWA regarding assessment of 

future traffic safety risk possibly by further development of the Safe Systems Approach would be a welcome 

feature in assessing the value of utilizing changing conditions such as geometry, land use, emergency 

response and travel demand in a prioritization methodology based on Risk Management theory.

Under the current Indiana Crash Database, the definition of an “incapacitating injury” is once again a subjective 

choice by the reporting officer. However, training of officers regarding this change along with a host of other 

revisions to the officers reporting software is still under an ongoing statewide training effort that was slowed 

considerably by the Covid Pandemic. As a result, some officers persist in classifying any injury that is subject 

to transport from the scene for medical treatment as incapacitating and possibly a Class “A” injury. The 

planned change to a subjective selection of FHWA defined Injury Nature definitions may render a more 

accurate count of possible Class “A” injuries if officers can be trained to utilize those choices judiciously.

The definition deployed by the Indiana Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) in late 2014, declared 

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. In the latter half of 2019, Indiana’s electronic reporting tool redefined the classification an 

incapacitating injury back to a subjective choice by the reporting officer. This change was part of the 

introduction of the FHWA mandated seven injury “nature” definitions that will classify suspected serious 

injuries.

In 2016 FHWA gave notice that the MMUCC 4th Edition guidelines requiring the term “Suspected Serious 

Injury” to be 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 Indiana TRCC to revise the officer’s electronic crash 

reporting software ARIES to change the data elements that are available in the state’s electronic vehicle crash 

data base therefore Indiana was judged to be out of compliance. The new guidelines 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 officer’s 

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

officers as well as consistent reporting practices have become a key element of statewide officer retraining as 

part of the adoption of the new ARIES 6 officer reporting software. 

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

Electronic Indiana Crash Reporting Tool for Officers. In 2019, the new officer reporting tool titled ARIES 6.0 

was completed, passed beta-testing and began deployment. ARIES 6.0 has been deployed to the Indiana 

State Police and many of Indiana’s County Sheriff agencies. A comprehensive retraining and deployment 

process is on-going to all local law enforcement officers. Once that process is complete all older versions of the 

reporting software will be turned off. 2020 is the first full year where all crashes with reported injuries will 

include the FHWA mandated serious injury types, however it should be noted that the ongoing deployment of 

training on the new system may include subjective choices by officers not yet trained that could cause nonuniform selection of injury nature.

INDOT will use a phased rollout of the officer reported injury type data over the following years until the entire 5 

year average of serious injury data is populated with officer collected data per the requirements of the MMUCC 

4th and 5th Editions. 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’ tasks at a 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 75

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 the constraint on functional 

class. Rural local public agencies (LPAs) are far more likely to apply for HSIP funds to make safety 

improvements on those rural local roads with higher average daily traffic. Often these roads are functionally 

classified as “Other Arterials”. 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; As a result, projects submitted by local agencies for HSIP and HRRRP eligibility often do not 

qualify for HRRRP funding 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 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 for timely 

calculations. Also, NHTSAs functional class definitions do not entirely match those held by FHWA potentially 

adding misperception of actual conditions. 

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

In the current Indiana 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 provides an advantage in terms of addressing emerging technologies, countermeasures, and analysis 

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 a prioritized 

and cost constrained list of safety improvement projects that improves INDOT’s ability to select and construct 

high value safety improvements. Candidate safety projects undergo weighted scoring that emphasizes the 

need to address high severity crash locations with the construction of cost-effective crash countermeasures. 

Budgeting for INDOT jurisdiction roadways occurs five years into the future. Spot improvement projects 

commonly require this amount of time for the environmental, design and land acquisition development. 

Projects that construct systemic improvement types are also budgeted five years into the future, however 

selection of projects and programing typically occurs between 30 to 18 months prior to the construction year.

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 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 75

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 for improvement. Most road 

safety assessment studies conducted at specific locations also consider property damage data 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 as part of INDOT’s annual Network Safety Screening 

effort. 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.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 75

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

1600958 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1000 Signs $29520 $36900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

8,500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1601027 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – new traffic 

signal

1 Locations $39104.02 $587512.02 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,573 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Installation

1602141 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

9 Locations $939716.7 $1005304.03 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1700901 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 60 Ramps $670660 $745177.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,450 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Pedestrian 

Safety

1700902 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 144 Ramps $443115 $972000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

8,900 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Pedestrian 

Safety

1700903 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 0.22 Miles $1293326.27 $1437029.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

8,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Pedestrian 

Safety

1700936 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 104 Ramps $2875500 $4393125 Urban Local Road or 

Street

7,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Pedestrian 

Safety

1702090 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $136102.37 $137486.81 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate87,828 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702093 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $94239.04 $95623.04 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate87,828 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702758 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1340 Signs $37080 $41200 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

8,500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1702855 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

578 Signs $151681.05 $201634.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

4,234 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Curve and 

Warning 

Signs 

Visibility

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 75

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

1702087 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $160747.25 $589347.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,250 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702088 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $128903.5 $128903.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,250 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702089 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $198832.19 $198832.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,240 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702091 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $113304.8 $113304.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,240 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702090 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $106442.01 $106442.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,480 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702094 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $164373.59 $164373.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,480 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702095 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $159776.97 $159776.97 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,125 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702096 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $163442.87 $163442.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,125 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702097 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $137446.86 $137446.86 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702098 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $104797.81 $104797.81 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1702101 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 8 Traffic signal 

visibility 

project

$359119.33 $359119.33 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther13,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Traffic Signal 

Visibility

1800941 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 40 Traffic signal 

visibility 

project

$529380 $529380 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther12,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Traffic Signal 

Visibility

1800942 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

15 Locations $3941087.06 $3993797.06 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther13,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1800943 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

7 Modify center 

medians

$718961.76 $762941.76 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther14,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Congestion 

Mitigation
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 75

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

1801310 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

7 Locations $2336715.41 $2336715.41 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther11,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1801312 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

789 Signs $158005.49 $158005.49 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Curve and 

Warning 

Signs 

Visibility

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1801318 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

15 Locations $467729.93 $467729.93 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1801319 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

7 Highway sign 

and 

Pavement 

marking 

visibility 

upgrade

$126103.92 $126103.92 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,950 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign and 

Marking 

Visibility

1801399 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 15 Traffic signal 

visibility 

project

$411485.34 $411485.34 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,885 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Traffic Signal 

Visibility

1801401 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 19 Install UPS 

Battery BackUp

$113007.23 $124991.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections UPS Battery 

Back-Up

1801403 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 13 Traffic signal 

visibility 

project

$324960.4 $324960.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Traffic Signal 

Visibility

1801404 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

5 Locations $715620.56 $1070320.56 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1801405 Roadway Rumble strips – center 80.95 Miles $750367.53 $750367.53 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Centerline and 

Edgeline 

Rumble 

Stripes

1801406 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 181.68 Miles $343034.15 $343034.15 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Refurbishment

1801407 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 14 Install UPS 

Battery BackUp

$87107.19 $87107.19 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections UPS Battery 

Back-Up

1801411 Lighting Interchange lighting 1 Locations $2025387.94 $2263269.94 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate14,250 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Interchange 

Highway 

Lighting

Install Lighting
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 75

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

1801412 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 6742 Numbers $248836.02 $248836.02 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,850 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Refurbishment

1801443 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 38 Ramps $634500 $898875 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

8,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Pedestrian 

Safety

1801453 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

171 Highway Sign 

Visibility 

Improvements

$88831.06 $88831.06 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Sign Visibility 

Improvement 

Project

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1801592 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 16 Install 

Pedestrian 

Flashing 

Beacons

$402168 $562190 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

7,250 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Install 

Pedestrian 

Flashers

1801682 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 41.68 Miles $371576.05 $371576.05 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Refurbishment

1801969 Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Adaptive Signal Control 

System

248 Intersections $2982820.04 $2982820.04 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic GPS Driven 

Emergeney 

Vehicle PreEmption 

System 

Installation

Pre-emption 

system

1802056 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

33.58 Miles $74000 $74000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,186 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install Curve 

Warning Signs

1802057 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

60 Signs $17252.69 $17252.69 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,193 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1802061 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 43 Locations $290000 $290000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

8,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Pedestrian 

Crossing 

Enhancements

1802066 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 1 Traffic signal 

visibility 

project

$27162.54 $27162.54 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 11,162 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Visibility

1802793 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2 Locations $334409.4 $419511.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,500 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1802798 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

6 Locations $765597.84 $956788.97 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,200 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 75

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

1802798 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

7 Locations $765597.84 $956788.97 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,500 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1802914 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

759 Signs $209807.67 $233119.63 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

5,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1802915 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

909 Signs $247030 $274478.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

5,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Sign Visibility 

Upgrade

1900459 Lighting Lighting - other 2308 Replace HPS 

with LED 

bulbs

$1573081.51 $1573081.51 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic HPS to LED 

Change Out

Lighting 

Upgrade

1901392 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2 Locations $321509.7 $321509.7 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,748 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1902018 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 26092 Numbers $450000 $450000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Refurbishment

1902036 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 6468 Numbers $534459 $534459 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Refurbishment

1902122 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $134585.44 $134585.44 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther14,591 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

1902727 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Locations $207472.37 $339075.67 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,322 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signal 

Mods

2001564 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 114 Ramps $17252.69 $17252.69 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,042 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Pedestrian 

Safety

2001636 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 34048 Numbers $411400.72 $411400.72 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RPM 

Refurbishment

2002585 Roadway Rumble strips – center 6 Miles $93059.03 $93059.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,682 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Centerline and 

Edgeline 

Rumble 

Stripes

Depending on contract award date some of the listed projects may be under Advance Construction (AC). All of these projects are identified for transfer to HSIP status on or before October 1, 2021.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 75

Projects with the Improvement Category of Non-infrastructure consist of improvements to traffic safety data systems or traffic safety planning efforts. Metropolitan planning organizations undertake safety planning as part of their annual 

Unified Planning Work Programs. HSIP funding is also used for non-infrastructure safety planning in rural areas by funding the operations of the Hazard Elimination Program for Existing Roads and Streets (HELPERS) Program managed 

by the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 75

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 781 784 745 817 829 916 860 809 896

Serious Injuries 3,823 3,453 3,338 3,434 3,505 3,388 3,210 3,062 3,302

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.990 1.000 0.940 1.037 0.997 1.120 1.055 0.978 1.165

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.844 4.409 4.215 4.357 4.214 4.145 3.937 3.701 4.293

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

84 87 94 109 97 118 140 91 125

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

321 295 277 276 280 248 254 234 299
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 75

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 75

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 75

Federal regulations promulgated in 2016 by Federal Highway Administration to support the safety performance 

reporting requirements included a requirement that states must report Suspected Serious Injuries using the 

criteria established in the MMUCC 4th Edition. Prior to this proposed rulemaking, the definition for 

incapacitating injury used by Indiana was determined by a crash victim transported from the scene for 

treatment. This definition was was deemed an acceptable measure to define suspected serious injuries in prior 

editions of the MMUCC. The linkage of a federal regulation to this 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 established in the MMUCC 4th Edition compelled 

Indiana to determine a method to approximate counting of Suspected Serious Injuries so that Indiana’s crash 

records system could be used to calculate historic and projected traffic safety performance counts in accord 

with “A” injuries on the KABCO scale.

The former methodology for identifying a person with a suspected serious injury was in use from 2014 until the 

end of 2019. This method utilized 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 that were 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 calculated and weighted to the most recent years before 

2014, resulting in a factor established to be 7.2% of all injuries. Indiana received approval from FHWA to use 

this calculated factor as in interim measure until changes were completed in the ARIES crash database to 

directly count suspected serious injuries. INDOT continued to use the 7.2% estimate of non-fatal injuries to 

report the number of statewide “Suspected Serious Injuries” until the end of 2019 when the new data elements 

were in place in the officer’s crash reporting system that would allow for a specific count of MMUCC 4th Edition 

compliant data.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 75

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

all roads in Indiana. Separate percentage values of Suspected Serious Injuries were established for subsets of 

the data that are used for reporting sub program performance based on separate historic analysis using the 

same methodology to establish estimated percentage contributions in those data subsets.

In late 2019, the vendor that manages Indiana’s crash records system (AIRES) for the Indiana State Police 

made changes to the officer's reporting software so that a person transported from the scene for treatment 

would no longer be identified as a person with a suspected serious injury. This change removed the 

designation Transported from the Scene as a requirement for identifying incapacitating injuries and a 

requirement was added that the officer select among a list of injury nature definitions for each person injured. 

In April of 2021 a review by FHWA found and adjusted the injury nature definitions to comply with the 

descriptions contained in the MMUCC 4th and 5th Editions. Prior to this review, definitions for the injury 

natures were in place but the descriptions of certain injury natures were determined to allow for possible 

misinterpretation by officers. INDOT subsequently determined that the 2020 count of suspected serious injuries 

resulted in a 7.8% increase over the 2019 count using the prior interim procedure.

The new version of the officers reporting tool titled ARIES 6 officer reporting system contains the corrected 

definitions of the FHWA compliant injury nature types in the data dictionary and the reporting software. ARIES 

6 is currently in use by the Indiana State Police and multiple county sheriffs’ departments. The deployment of 

the ARIES 6 officer reporting system is currently ongoing in 2021 and training in use of the new features will be 

ongoing until all Indiana law enforcement agencies have installed the new system and are using the new 

reporting tool.

INDOT will use a phased rollout of the officer collected suspected serious injury type data over the following 

years until the entire 5 year average of serious injury data is populated with officer collected data per the 

requirements of the MMUCC 4th and 5th Editions. However, in order to begin reporting suspected serious 

injuries according to current requirements, INDOT decided to begin a direct count of suspected serious injuries 

in the 2020 ARIES data. It was determined by INDOT that that the changes made in late 2019 were adequate 

to begin the transition to directly count suspected serious injuries for reporting most responses in the 2021 

HSIP report. To be clear, the changes made in 2021 to bring Indiana’s SSI definitions into full compliance with 

the MMUCC 4th and 5th editions are not likely to result in a discontinuity in the count of suspected serious 

injuries. Review of the direct count of 2020 injury data shows an increase of 7.8% above the 2019 estimate. 

When consideration of the unusual nature of data in 2020 is considered, the actual difference in these counts 

is relatively minor, therefore the old (2014 to 2019) temporary estimation procedure is found to be reasonably 

accurate.

The one exception to the above described procedure is used in question 34. A different procedure is used to 

set the mandated PM 1 safety performance targets for calendar year 2022. INDOT’s partner agency that 

contains the State Highway Safety Office, is the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (CJI). INDOT shares 

responsibility with CJI to report three of the same target measures in their annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP) 

Report that they submit to NHTSA. The timing of the HSP report requires that the future year targets be set 

before July 1st of each year. CJI felt that the data from 2020 consisted of unusual variables that could have an 

unhelpful influence for target setting. It was decided that a single year of direct data collected at the height of 

the Covid pandemic would not be a reliable source to use for trend analysis or to project future year target 

values for either count of fatalities or for the count of suspected serious injury targets.

It was agreed that at least one more year of data from 2021 would need to be collected and incorporated in 

order to extrapolate projected values for the 2023 PM1 performance targets. INDOT agreed with this 

assessment, therefore the use of direct suspected injury counts will wait at least until the target setting process 

for 2023 commences.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 75

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

FARS Final Report File for the preceding years through 2019, 

FARS Annual Report File for the year 2018 and earlier Website location: 

https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest

Indiana State Police ARIES Crash Reporting System for the year 2020

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

ownership.

Year 2020

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 93 0.68 1.07

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

92 172 1.76 3.29

Rural Minor Arterial 82 223 2.51 6.8

Rural Minor Collector 27 118 1.38 6.04

Rural Major Collector 99 373 1.89 7.11

Rural Local Road or 

Street

136 257 2.6 4.93

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

39 175 0.33 1.47

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

21 38 1.33 2.48

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

100 714 0.94 6.69

Urban Minor Arterial 78 593 0.91 6.91

Urban Minor Collector 4 11 0

Urban Major Collector 27 258 0.52 4.95
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 75

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 Local Road or 

Street

102 268 0.71 1.84
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 75

Year 2020

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

441.48 1,231.37 1.06 2.95

County Highway 

Agency

202.02 716.27 1.05 3.72

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

210.99 947.57 1 4.49

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 2016 through 2020 have been adjusted for approved and estimated 

VMT data and changes in the interim classification of Suspected Serious Injuries per the methodology 

described under Question 30 - Additional Information.

The new Indiana Officers Crash Reporting Tool was created by a vendor working under contract to the crash 

database owner agency, the Indiana State Police (ISP). In late 2019, the crash database vendor added a 

requirement that the officer select among a list of injury nature definitions for each person injured. In April of 

2021, a review by FHWA found and adjusted the injury nature definitions to comply with the descriptions 

contained in the MMUCC 4th and 5th Editions. Prior to this review, definitions for the injury natures were in 

place but the descriptions of some injury natures were determined to allow for some misinterpretation by 

officers.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 75

The new version of the officers reporting tool titled ARIES 6 contains the corrected definitions of FHWA 

compliant injury nature types in the data dictionary and reporting software. ARIES 6 is in use by the Indiana 

State Police and multiple county sheriffs’ departments. ARIES 6 is currently in the process of being deployed 

and training in use of the new features. The training and deployment process will be ongoing until all Indiana 

law enforcement agencies have installed and are using the new reporting tool.

INDOT is using a phased rollout of officer’s reported subjective injury nature (type) data over the following 

years until the entire 5 year average of serious injury data is populated with officer collected data per the 

requirements of the MMUCC 4th and 5th Editions. However, in order to begin reporting suspected serious 

injuries according to current requirements, INDOT decided to begin a direct count of suspected serious injuries 

in the 2020 ARIES data. It was determined by INDOT that that the changes made in late 2019 were adequate 

to begin the transition to directly count suspected serious injuries for reporting most responses in the 2021 

HSIP report. However, because the use of the FHWA mandated definitions have recently been revised and the 

full roll-out of the AIRIES 6 reporting tool isn’t yet complete. It may prove necessary to revise reported 2020 

counts and rates of suspected serious injuries in future reporting years.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

2021 so far has seen a significant recovery of economic activity from the downturn due to the Covid 19 

pandemic that was experienced in 2020. Although the recovery isn’t complete, travel activity has caused an 

increase of 7.62% in the estimated Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) for 2021. The early estimate of VMT for 2020 

indicates that a reduction of 8.1% occurred compared to 2019. In contrast, an estimated VMT increase of 

1.01% is estimated to have occurred from 2018 to 2019.

The number of police reported fatalities in 2020 increased by 10.75% compared to 2019. The unexpected 2020 

spike in fatalities resulted in an increase of 1.87% in the 5 year rolling average. Suspected serious injuries 

increased by 7.84%, however this change is possibly the result of a data discontinuity resulting from the 

previously described change in procedure for counting suspected serious injuries and the general downward 

trend in total injuries and total crash events in 2020 provides evidence that the trend in the most severe 

outcomes runs counter to other crash trends. 

Statewide 2020 crash data shows that Indiana experienced 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. 

Lane departure crashes continued to be the most numerous harmful events in 2020. The long-term ongoing 

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

aimed at reducing the incidence of lane departures. Widespread deployment of multiple countermeasures such 

as cable barrier, rumble stripes, safety edge, curve marking and high friction surface treatments has resulted in 

a moderate downward trend in crashes resulting from travel lane vehicle departures, including roadway 

departure, head-on and opposite direction sideswipe crashes. The slow downward trend of vehicle lane 

departure fatalities was continued in 2020. The 5-year average of lane departure fatalities and serious injuries 

was 36.60% of all crashes of the same severity. In comparison the 5-year averages were 38.7% of the total in 

2019, and 40.6% in 2018. The most numerous of these crashes continues to be the result of single vehicles 

leaving the roadway, although in 2020 there was also a slight increase in the number of cross median head on 

crashes on two lane two way roadways. 

Fatal and serious injury outcomes as a result of intersection crashes continues to make up the second worst 

type of harmful event. In 2020 the 5-year average of intersection fatal and serious injury crashes contributed 

31.8% of all crashes of the same severity. In 2019 the same comparison to all crashes of the same severity 

was 32.5%. In response to intersection crashes, INDOT is using HSIP funds to advance systemic 

improvements to increase the visibility of both signalized and un-signalized intersections along with a program 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 75

to modernize traffic signal control equipment. INDOT is engaged in a program to replace older “5 Section” 

signal heads with 4 section signal heads to increase options for control in the use of “permitted/protected” left 

turn traffic signal phasing. The MUTCD approved 4-section heads use a flashing yellow arrow to allow for more 

flexible control of permissive left turn phasing schemes. In 2020 and the first part of 2021, INDOT also 

deployed its first intersection Conflict Warning Systems to a select group of rural two way stop controlled 

intersections. Evaluation the operation and potential of these devices to reduce severe crash outcomes will be 

ongoing for the next three years.

INDOT's Traffic Engineering Division is encouraging the use of its Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy 

by all designers and preliminary engineering staff to increase appropriate selection of innovative intersection 

designs to reduce traffic conflicts. Design types such as Roundabouts, and reduced conflict intersection types 

such as R-Cut/J-Turn and other Median U-Turn designs are prevalent design types that result from those 

instances when an innovative type is validated. All intersection improvement design choices made using HSIP 

funds must first be validated using Indiana’s ICE policy. In 2014, INDOT produced its ICE guideline document, 

and capacity analysis methods have subsequently been developed to assist design type decision making. 

Many of the resulting designs are deployed as part of both safety and mobility enhancement projects.

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

bicycle and horse drawn buggy riders. INDOT is working with our local agency partners on education efforts as 

well as the construction of infrastructure countermeasures such as warning devices, enhanced crosswalks, 

mid-block and intersection beacons, road diets and wide paved shoulders for buggies where they are deemed 

appropriate.

In 2020, the 5-year rolling average of pedestrian involved fatal and serious injury crashes grew to 7.5% of all 

serious crashes compared to 4.7% in 2019, 5.3 % in 2018, 5.8% in 2017, and 6.3% in 2016. While the trend of 

suspected serious injuries appears to be downward in terms, the percentage of fatal pedestrian fatalities has 

grown to 11.4% of all fatalities. In response to increased fatal crash results, INDOT is reacting by working to 

revise preliminary engineering and design practices for all projects to enhance safety for all non-motorized 

road in an equitable manner. Urban local agencies are asked to consider utilizing available local HSIP funding 

directed to systemic construction of safer pedestrian facilities such as: cross walks, signals, user activated 

beacons and median refuge islands where appropriate.

Construction of bike and pedestrian friendly facilities in recent years has contributed to a higher numbers of 

bike users and pedestrians. When combined with VMT growth over the last few years, non-motorized road 

users have experienced more frequent conflicts with motorvehicles. Despite higher levels of exposure, an 

unchanged trend of serious outcome bike crashes has occurred. The 5-year average percentage of serious 

bike crashes of this type compared to all serious injury crashes in 2020 was 1.8%, compared to 1.7% in 2019 

and 1.8 percent in 2018.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:876.0

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

Data Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System

2018 FARS Final File Count
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 75

2019 FARS Annual Report File

2020 Indiana State Police ARIES Database

Safety performance targets result from analysis of trends in crashes of the stated severity rather than goals 

themselves. The information on expected performance acts as a benchmark to measure progress or indicate 

where changes are needed to improve program effectiveness going forward. The safety targets therefore do 

not represent goals but rather expected results due to current conditions.

For the purpose of comparison to the SHSO's annual HSP report to NHTSA, the 5 year average performance 

target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2022 value of (920.4) as described in the following 

methodology.

INDOT calculates this performance target by using a linear regression model based on the number of fatalities 

in previous years to predict fatalities.

It was determined that analysis methods used during the previous year would not be as effective for this 

submission due to the unexpected events of 2020. Therefore, a return to a simple linear regression model was 

chosen to predict fatalities.

In order to predict the number of fatalities, this model would use the previous 5 years of data. However, the 

2020 data was determined to be an outlier so that year was excluded from the calculation. The excel functions 

of SLOPE () and INTERCEPT () were used to generate the predictive equation. The predictive equation is of 

the form FATALITIES=YEAR*SLOPE()+INTERCEPT(). This predicted total was then adjusted upwards by 5% 

to account for any unexpected variances.

Number of Serious Injuries:2998.2

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

Data Source: Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES)

2004 - 2013 As reported count of "Incapacitating Injuries" 

2014 - 2019 Estimated count amounting to 7.2% of all non-fatal injuries

2020 Direct count of Suspected Serious Injuries from ARIES Database

Safety performance targets result from analysis of trends in crashes of the stated severity rather than goals 

themselves. The information on expected performance acts as a benchmark to measure progress or indicate 

where changes are needed to improve program effectiveness going forward. The safety targets therefore do 

not represent goals but rather expected results due to current conditions.

For the purpose of comparison to the SHSO's annual HSP report to NHTSA, the 5-year average performance 

target for Number of Serious Injuries listed above is based on a projected calendar 2022 value of (3019.0) as 

described in the following methodology.

Baseline projections are calculated using all injury counts and applying the 7.2% adjustment to calculate yearly 

Suspected Serious Injury counts for years 2016 – 2019. An equation is used to generate predictive values for 

2021 and 2022.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 75

In order to predict the number of serious injuries, this model would use the previous 5 years of data. However, 

the 2020 data was determined to be an outlier so that year was excluded from the calculation. The excel 

functions of SLOPE () and INTERCEPT () were used to generate the predictive equation. The predictive 

equation is of the form SERIOIUS_INJ=YEAR*SLOPE()+INTERCEPT(). This predicted total was then adjusted 

upwards by 5% to account for any unexpected variances.

Fatality Rate:1.076

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

Data Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

The NHTSA calculated and reported FARS values 2016 through 2019.

2020 - Indiana State Police ARIES Database

FHWA reported VMT values for 2016 - 2019

INDOT estimated VMT values for 2020 and 2021

Safety performance targets result from analysis of trends in crashes of the stated severity rather than goals 

themselves. The information on expected performance acts as a benchmark to measure progress or indicate 

where changes are needed to improve program effectiveness going forward. The safety targets therefore do 

not represent goals but rather expected results due to current conditions.

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

is based on a projected calendar 2022 value of (1.110) as described in the following methodology. 

Estimated/Predicted values for 2017-2021: The FHWA approved VMT for 2018 was significantly lower than the 

INDOT reported value therefore an adjustment was made to the projection of annual Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT) growth rate estimates. For 2018 a growth of 1.0% was used however for 2020 a reduction of 7.4% is 

assumed due to effects of the Covid 19 pandemic. For 2021 the assumed VMT was estimated to be 1% below 

2019 with the assumed growth rate at 1.0%. 

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:3.675

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

Data Source: Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES)

2004 – 2013 ARIES As reported count of "Incapacitating Injuries"

2014 – 2020 ARIES Estimated incapacitating injuries count per approved process per VMT values FHWA VMT 

for 2014-2018 and INDOT values for 2019.

FHWA reported VMT values for 2016 - 2019
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 75

INDOT estimated VMT values for 2020 and 2021

Safety performance targets result from analysis of trends in crashes of the stated severity rather than goals 

themselves. The information on expected performance acts as a benchmark to measure progress or indicate 

where changes are needed to improve program effectiveness going forward. The safety targets therefore do 

not represent goals but rather expected results due to current conditions.

The 5-year average performance target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2022 value of (3.630)

as described in the following methodology.

Estimated/Predicted values for 2017-2021: The FHWA approved VMT for 2018 was significantly lower than the 

INDOT reported value therefore an adjustment was made to the projection of annual Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT) growth rate estimates. For 2018 a growth of 1.0% was used however for 2020 a reduction of 7.4% is 

assumed due to effects of the Covid 19 pandemic. For 2021 the assumed VMT was estimated to be 1% below 

2019 with the assumed growth rate at 1.0%. 

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 suspected serious 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:344.5

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

2016-2019 FARS Annual Report File

2020 Indiana State Police ARIES database

Data Source: Suspected Serious Injury Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES) (Nonmotorist persons)*

2009-2013 As reported count of "Incapacitating Injuries" 

2014-2018 Estimated count amounting to 13% of all non-fatal injuries

Safety performance targets result from analysis of trends in crashes of the stated severity rather than goals 

themselves. The information on expected performance acts as a benchmark to measure progress or indicate 

where changes are needed to improve program effectiveness going forward. The safety targets therefore do 

not represent goals but rather expected results due to current conditions.

The 5-year average performance target listed above is based on a projected calendar 2022 value of (366) as 

described in the following methodology. 

In order to predict the number of non-motorized fatalities, this model would use the previous 5 years of data. 

However, the 2020 data was determined to be an outlier so that year was excluded from the calculation. The 

excel functions of SLOPE () and INTERCEPT () were used to generate the predictive equation. The predictive 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 75

equation is of the form FATALITIES=YEAR*SLOPE()+INTERCEPT(). This predicted total was then adjusted 

upwards by 5% to account for any unexpected variances.

*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. 

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 agreed upon both the methodology that was used to establish the traffic safety performance 

targets and the calendar 2018 targets.

Using similar procedures, INDOT has calculated safety performance targets for calendar years 2019, 2020, 

2021 and 2022. A final agreement on each target for 2022 was reached on May 21, 2021. The Traffic Safety 

Performance Target Setting Team included INDOT, LTAP, Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (which hosts 

Indiana’s State Highway Safety Office) and the Indiana Metropolitan Planning Organization Council.

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), and representation of Law 

Enforcement and Emergency Services.

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 2021 Highway Safety Plan Report to NHTSA before 

their June 1, 2021, deadline.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 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.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Number of Fatalities 907.7 862.0

Number of Serious Injuries 3467.4 3293.4

Fatality Rate 1.100 1.063

Serious Injury Rate 4.178 4.058

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

405.9 377.2

For target year 2020, INDOT estimates that Indiana met all of the PM 1 Safety Performance Targets as defined 

per 23 CRF 490.211(c)(2). The calculation of 2020 targets utilized a revised projection estimate method 

established to consider lessons learned from the 2018 effort to project target values for 2019.

The assessment of 2020 target values contained in this report utilized the Annual VMT data for years 2016

through 2019 from FHWA and the latest known preliminary 2020 values for HMVMT from the INDOT Traffic

Statistics Office. The FHWA volume data on the VM-2 table was queried at: 

[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2018/vm2.cfm].

Counts of fatalities for prior years 2016 through 2019 are from the FARS Final counts contained on the NHTSA 

FARS Annual Report File (ARF) Indiana web page at:[https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest ]

The fatality count for 2020 is from Indiana’s crash records database (ARIES). The anticipated five-year

average number of fatalities and the resulting rate of fatalities per one hundred million vehicle miles of travel

are below the PM1 target values set for 2020. The official result will be dependent on the VMT values that

FHWA applies in their performance target verification calculation that will be performed in 2022. The 

preliminary estimated outcome is that the target for fatality count and fatality rate will be met. The unknown 

element that may cause one or more of the target rates to fail is the effect of the Covid 19 pandemic on travel

patterns, in particular, the VMT estimation that will be determined by FHWA at the time of their review. If 

FHWA determines that the 2020 VMT is lower than the INDOT early estimate, the result could be a failure to

meet the target rate for fatalities and/or suspected serious injuries.

The counts of suspected serious injuries, non-motorized fatalities and suspected serious injury counts for all

years are also from the Indiana Crash Database. In 2020, a change was made to the count of suspected 

serious injuries that is a result of a direct count of the FHWA mandated Injury types contained in the ARIES

Injury Nature classification in the Indiana crash database. In the later months of 2019, the Indiana State Police

and their database vendor added the FHWA injury types to the electronic officer reporting system ARIES 5.1 

and to the new reporting system then under development ARIES 6. The addition to the reporting tool allows

officers to subjectively select among 15 types of injury natures experience by a crash participant including the

seven injury types deemed as a class “A”, suspected serious by FHWA.

INDOT’s direct count of 2020 suspected serious injuries higher than in 2019 by 240 people. The data 

discontinuity caused by the change in counting methodology is relatively small as it represents about a 7.8%

increase over the former counting methodology used for 2014 through 2019. The former method used a 

calculation for estimating suspected serious injuries based on an assumed percentage of all injuries.

The calculated 2020 five-year average of suspected serious injuries is 3293.5. This number remains below the 

2020 target value of 3467.4. Also, the five-year average rate of suspected serious injuries is estimated to be 

4.058, which is lower than the 2020 target value of 4.178.

Page 54 of 75
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 75

Likewise, the expectation is that Indiana will meet the target for non-motorized fatalities and suspected serious 

injuries. All classes of non-fatal injuries in Indiana have been on a gradual multiyear downward trend starting in 

2004 and excepting short term spikes, the trend has continued through 2019. 

The official results to be calculated by FHWA in 2022 is dependent on the VMT values that FHWA applies in 

their calculations. It should be noted that there is a history of deviation between the FHWA annual official 

VMTs and those reported to FHWA by INDOT, therefore these findings are preliminary, however the 

expectation is that the rate dependent performance targets of fatalities and suspected serious injuries will be 

met.

For Target year 2019, the FHWA Target Achievement Assessment per 23 CRF 490.211(c)(2), found that 

Indiana met or made significant progress towards meeting its PM 1 Safety Performance Targets. The 5-year 

average target for number of fatalities was not met but the other 4 targets were met.

In 2020 an unexpected spike of 896 fatalities occurred. This spike is compared to the preliminary 2019 FARS 

count of fatalities at 809 and the FARS count in 2018 of 860. The reasons for the 2020 increase are not yet 

clear but it was noticed that average travel speed data indicated increased speeds on rural interstate highways 

and increased speeds may have also occurred on numerous urban and rural roads as well. During the worst of 

the pandemic some law enforcement agencies saw a reduction in the number of traffic stops and citations 

issued. This may also have been a factor in driver behavior. In addition, motorcycle fatalities increased 

significantly in 2020. Good summer weather is presumed to have contributed to an increase in the number of 

motorcycle/moped related fatalities. The number of motorcycle/moped related fatalities was 112 in 2019 

followed by 141 in 2020, resulting in a 26% increase.

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 2021 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

99 112 115 135 122 126 88

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

255 275 308 289 294 260 227

Under 23 U.S. C 148(g)(2), FHWA has determined that over the last year the 5 year average, (2015 – 2019), 

Indiana experienced an increase in the rate of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. INDOT 

will address strategies to reduce these rates in the next revision of the Indiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

The 2020 fatality data is from the Indiana crash database.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 75

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 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 2021 was to maintain integrity of a planned $54.9 million 

investments in the 2021 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 expected severe crashes reduced. A baseline of $24,400 per severe crash to be reduced has been 

established as the baseline ratio at the start of each fiscal year.

This is a summary of results relative to the federal fiscal year 2021 goal. The safety programaffected a slightly 

positive change in C-E, compared to the baseline. However, the C-E achieved increased to about $23,840 or 

slightly more than the $23,775 estimate from fiscal year 2020. year. Overall, the fiscal year 2020 performance 

expectation was met.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations.

The number of reported motor vehicle crash fatalities increased from 809 in calendar year 2019 to 896 in 2020, 

which represents an increase of 10.75%. At the time that this report was submitted, INDOT’s early estimate for 

2020 vehicle miles of travel indicates a decrease of 7.01% from 2019. As a result, the estimated rate of 

fatalities per one hundred million vehicle miles of travel (HMVMT) was increased by 19.12% from 0.978 in 

2019 to an estimated 1.165 in 2020.

The frequency of suspected serious injuries in 2018 was 3,210 compared to 3,062 in 2019 and 3,302 in 2020. 

The assumption that serious injuries also rose in 2020 must be tempered by the fact that a new process was 

used in 2020 to directly count these casualties and a data discontinuity accounts for part of the change. The 

current 5-year average incidence for suspected serious injuries represents a modest 0.32% decrease 

compared to the prior 5-year average.

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 2020 $66.7 million obligated HSIP investment in the 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, 
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 75

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.

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

In fiscal year 2021, the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) completed 44 Road Safety Assessment (RSA) reports for 

site specific locations on highways under INDOT Jurisdiction. In addition, INDOT completed 4 RSAs on 

roadway corridors that encompass 13.5 miles of urban highways and approximately 47 intersections. INDOT 

utilizes RSAs to program HSIP funded construction projects as the part of the INDOT Traffic Safety Program. 

INDOT seeks to obligate approximately 50% of its approved safety asset program budget to perform 

construction of site specific “spot” projects mostly using HSIP funds. The other 50% of the safety budget is 

reserved for the construction of HSIP eligible systemic safety improvement projects.

The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and local public agencies also conduct numerous RSAs prior 

to submitting proposed projects to Office of Traffic Safety for HSIP eligibility determination. During the fiscal 

year, INDOT received 12 Local RSA reports for eligibility evaluation.

INDOT currently maintains 25 individual work types as eligible for systemic HSIP funding. The Program 

Methodology section of this report contains a list of the safety program categories that these systemic 

countermeasures address..

In federal fiscal year 2021 INDOT obligated 113.3% of the 164-HE penalty transfer funds for infrastructure 

safety improvements. At the time of reporting, for fiscal year 2021 INDOT has obligated 97.29% of the 

infrastructure portion of Indiana’s 164-HE penalty transfer. This amount is 105.5% of the required obligation 

total.

At the start of calendar 2019 INDOT approved intersection Conflict Warning Systems (CWS) as an eligible 

systemic safety project work type in our intersection safety sub-program. Construction of 16 CWS installations 

were completed in FY 2021. INDOT continues to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and operational 

maintenance of these device.

In federal fiscal year 2021 INDOT is on track to obligate approximately $73.4 million in federal aid highway 

safety funds including HSIP, HRRRP, Section 164-HE and other federal funds 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 2020
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 75

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)

Crash Data Management 862 3,293.4 1.06 4.04

Run Off Road 288.4 773 0.35 0.95

Lane Departure 418 1,103 0.51 1.36

Intersections 217 1,105.6 0.27 1.36

Work Zone 24.4 76.8 0.03 0.1

Large Trucks 142.4 249.9 0.18 0.31

Motorcycle/Moped 115.4 420.4 0.14 0.52

Pedestrians 98.6 213.8 0.3 0.26

Bicycle 15.8 60.6 0.02 0.08
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 75

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Fatalities

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Serious Injuries

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 75

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Serious Injury Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 75

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: High Friction Surface Treatment 

Description: 

A research study project was conducted 

with Purdue University under Indiana’s 

Joint Transportation Research Program 

that reviewed INDOT’s first deployment of 

High Friction Surface Treatments under 

study project SPR-4300. The study is 

titled, Investigation of Durability and 

Performance of High Friction Surface 

Treatment. This study was completed in 

FY 2021. The aims of the study 

encompassed both crash performance 

and durability of the deployed friction 

treatments. 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 21 

Number of Installations: 21 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 2 

Years After: 2 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

The study conclusions determined a CMF 

of 0.71 in regard to placement of HFST 

treatments on 21 highway curves. This 

result closely compares with the CMF of 

0.697 found in the CMF Clearing House. 

File Name: Hyperlink
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 75

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)

1383409 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 1.00 1.00 136.0

1383477 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 11.46

1400849 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.24

1400858 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 1.00 1.00 1.30

1601181 Urban Major 

Collector

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 3.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 9.00 1.16

1601134 Rural Major 

Collector

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 1.00 1.00 0.513

1601135 Rural Major 

Collector

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 7.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 23.54

1500435 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 108.00 94.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 113.00 98.00 33.07

1500439 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 108.00 94.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 113.00 98.00 68.62

1500440 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 108.00 94.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 113.00 98.00 65.01

1500441 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 108.00 94.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 113.00 98.00 112.76

1400569 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 48.00 33.00 3.00 5.00 51.00 38.00 5.21

1400809 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

– other

1.79

1500437 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

2731.00 3077.00 30.00 56.00 192.00 517.00 2953.00 3650.00 0.54
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 75

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)

1500443 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

429.00 473.00 3.00 4.00 100.00 121.00 532.00 598.00 0.31

1401687 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 19.00 9.00 5.00 1.00 24.00 10.00 3.13

1296298 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 102.00 70.00 6.00 8.00 108.00 78.00 5.23

1400709 Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 63.00 46.00 1.00 8.00 6.00 72.00 52.00 2.35

1382614 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

22.00 10.00 2.00 24.00 10.00 2.19

1400279 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

31.00 13.00 1.00 31.00 14.00 9.4

1005755 Urban Major 

Collector

Lighting Intersection lighting 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 12.08

1400963 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Alignment Vertical alignment or 

elevation change

171.00 159.00 6.00 4.00 177.00 163.00 13.22

1296299 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 125.00 78.00 9.00 6.00 134.00 84.00 55.37

1500404 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.26

1296422 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 6441.00 4443.00 91.00 85.00 104.50 105.80 6636.50 4633.80 15.70

1296843 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 6428.00 5241.00 102.00 96.00 1315.00 1585.00 7845.00 6922.00 41.58

1296914 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 5522.00 4036.00 79.00 65.00 106.60 109.00 5707.60 4210.00 31.31

1593072 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 7188.00 5030.00 147.00 132.00 162.60 167.60 7497.60 5329.60 73.24
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 75

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)

1600113 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 4559.00 3141.00 99.00 67.00 95.40 93.30 4753.40 3301.30 24.49

1600125 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 7188.00 5030.00 14.00 13.20 162.60 167.60 7364.60 5210.80 56.36

0810280 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

246.00 150.00 1.00 42.00 18.00 289.00 168.00 20.52

1400166 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 121.00 65.00 6.00 2.00 127.00 67.00 24.92

1383351 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

146.00 147.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 157.00 153.00 30.32

1400720 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

47.00 51.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 50.00 55.00 12.16

1400810 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

57.00 82.00 9.00 5.00 66.00 87.00 91.25

1592418 Urban Minor 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

3380.00 3347.00 6.00 4.00 86.00 48.00 3472.00 3399.00 95.49

1592419 Urban Minor 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1259.00 1274.00 11.00 5.00 111.00 117.00 1381.00 1396.00 19.07

1297755 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

4428.00 3789.00 38.00 35.00 587.00 451.00 5053.00 4275.00 37.73

1601762 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

74.00 58.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 81.00 63.00 8.02

1601763 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

42.00 22.00 10.00 6.00 52.00 28.00 3.27

1601764 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

19.00 31.00 4.00 1.00 23.00 32.00 9.62
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 75

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)

1601765 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

43.00 30.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 45.00 33.00 0.18

1500442 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - other 24.00 21.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 26.00 24.00 44.64

1297756 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

4913.00 4391.00 43.00 39.00 623.00 428.00 5579.00 4858.00 84.66

1401347 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

12549.00 10574.00 37.00 34.00 971.00 830.00 13557.00 11438.00 108.47

1401349 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

5434.00 4314.00 10.00 6.00 470.00 353.00 5914.00 4673.00 167.12

1401685 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

531.00 617.00 3.00 1.00 53.00 24.00 587.00 642.00 31.66

1401042 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

4715.00 4116.00 21.00 17.00 341.00 203.00 5077.00 4336.00 143.66

1401046 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

4278.00 4070.00 12.00 7.00 414.00 403.00 4704.00 4480.00 84.63

1500320 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1087.00 1012.00 3.00 106.00 124.00 1193.00 1139.00 199.5

1592417 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

311.00 434.00 1.00 4.00 67.00 32.00 379.00 470.00 7.41

1383434 Urban Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

153.00 135.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 33.00 6.00 189.00 144.00 130.21

1006029 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

17386.00 14492.00 45.00 37.00 35.00 48.00 200.00 1120.00 17666.00 15697.00 180.48

1006030 Urban Minor 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

2617.00 2334.00 2.00 1.00 54.00 27.00 2673.00 2362.00 87.34

1296261 Urban 

Principal 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal – add 

backplates with

retroreflective borders

346.00 306.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 24.00 27.00 376.00 336.00 5.88
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 75

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

1296917 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal – add 

backplates with

retroreflective borders

90.00 76.00 1.00 4.00 11.00 9.00 102.00 89.00 15.15

1296961 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal – add 

backplates with

retroreflective borders

179.00 167.00 4.00 2.00 21.00 12.00 36.00 25.00 240.00 206.00 17.95

1296966 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal – add 

backplates with

retroreflective borders

115.00 115.00 7.00 9.00 122.00 124.00 47.54

1296971 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal – add 

backplates with

retroreflective borders

461.00 483.00 6.00 1.00 13.00 8.00 33.00 50.00 513.00 542.00 105.93

1500423 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal – add 

backplates with

retroreflective borders

2220.00 2351.00 10.00 17.00 13.00 17.00 123.00 116.00 2366.00 2501.00 0.33

1600069 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

35.00 32.00 5.00 2.00 40.00 34.00 12.34

1172207 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

181.00 148.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 20.00 31.00 206.00 185.00 0.52

1296424 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

30738.00 30196.00 84.00 87.00 122.00 112.00 2015.00 2319.00 32959.00 32714.00 0.34

1297111 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

113.00 127.00 1.00 7.00 2.00 10.00 18.00 131.00 147.00 55.79

1500613 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

3986.00 4428.00 6.00 1.00 44.00 73.00 356.00 513.00 4392.00 5015.00 74.16

1296849 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

34.00 46.00 1.00 10.00 14.00 214.00 109.00 259.00 169.00 33.03

1296972 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

725.00 524.00 3.00 2.00 10.00 9.00 86.00 78.00 824.00 613.00 35.06

1600465 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

7.00 9.00 1.00 4.00 9.00 12.00 18.00 0.748
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 75

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)

1400714 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Railroad grade 

crossings

Crossing warning signs 

and pavement marking 

improvements

1.00 1.00 0.838

0400495 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

7.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 9.00 0.06

0710463 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

7.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 4.00 16.53

1601759 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

25.00 16.00 3.00 6.00 28.00 22.00 0.54

1601760 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

61.00 53.00 2.00 1.00 8.00 6.00 71.00 60.00 1.35

1600079 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

30.00 13.00 1.00 30.00 14.00 0.95

1600084 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

34.00 48.00 1.00 3.00 35.00 51.00 0.25

1600085 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

26.00 8.00 2.00 26.00 10.00 0.82

1600086 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.04

1600087 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

13.00 6.00 1.00 14.00 6.00 4.02

1600088 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

8.00 5.00 8.00 5.00 1.01

1600089 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

29.00 85.00 1.00 2.00 30.00 87.00 0.87
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 68 of 75

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)

1600090 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

33.00 14.00 33.00 14.00 3.15

1296846 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

9.00 8.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 15.00 11.00 0.24

1500321 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 2.00

1401032 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.26

1500428 Urban Minor 

Collector

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 2.00 2.00 11.00 8.00 13.00 10.00 154.85

1296920 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Rumble strips –other 3706.00 2798.00 49.00 36.00 506.00 509.00 4261.00 3343.00 132.51

1600118 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Rumble strips –other 3207.00 2559.00 43.00 28.00 514.00 491.00 3764.00 3078.00 140.99

1298317 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

28494.00 25177.00 11.00 5.00 72.00 43.00 307.00 390.00 28884.00 25615.00 90.05

1296428 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

22218.00 17712.00 8.00 12.00 49.00 88.00 2019.00 2135.00 24294.00 19947.00 0.04

1600099 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

2839.00 2319.00 37.00 48.00 343.00 383.00 3219.00 2750.00 0.04

In general, the implementation of HSIP projects results in a reduced risk for fatalities and serious injuries due to motor vehicle crashes. The most frequently selected MOE is a comparison of estimated benefit cost ratio before construction 

to benefit cost ratio found after construction. However, certain systemic improvement types that serve vulnerable road users cannot be calculated using before / after crash analysis due to the somewhat random location and frequency of 

crash events. For those cases, a safe systems approach is utilized instead that measures investment level for systemic upgrade of facilities in designated road corridors or areas. In these cases, the MOE is effective deployment of 

systemic units. These project improvement categories include pedestrians and bicyclists beacons, crosswalks, and warning signage additions and upgrades.

Outcomes are not always apparent in the naïve cost effectiveness analysis of serious injury counts due to the reclassification of incapacitating injuries that took place in the 2014 – 2019 time frame. Official VMT values in the interim years 

is a variable, limiting the ability to evaluate trends in rates. Due to the need to use incapacitating injuries in the cost effectiveness MOE, results tend to be skewed toward lower cost savings in the post construction period. 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. Also, a new release of the RoadHAT software revised and modernized the average crash costs 

used by INDOT in benefit cost ratio analysis.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 69 of 75

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 increased motor vehicle crashes involving fatal outcomes have occurred. Prior to 2020 it was thought that crash trends were strongly influenced in part by exposure between vehicles due to increasing employment driven 

congestion. However, after the onset of the Covid 19 pandemic, other factors may have superseded employment rates to influence fatal and suspected serious injury counts. As a result, numbers of fatalities increased by 10.79% in 2020 

even though the total number of crashes were lower by 19.16% compared to 2019. The number of suspected serious injuries were close to usual when adjusted for the new counting methodology started in 2020. This indicates that other 

factors are causing greater percentage of fatal crash outcomes.

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 is likely that safety programs are a factor influencing the frequency of 

severe crash outcomes where site specific and systemic countermeasures have been deployed. 

The trend of reduced numbers of suspected serious injuries from 2016 forward indicate that HSIP funded safety improvements have has some beneficial effect. The 5 year rolling average of suspected serious injuries has declined year by 

year resulting in a decline of 4.9% since 2015. At the same time the 5 year average of fatalities has varied year by year with a change of 11.1 % higher from 2015 through 2020. These results indicate that factors influencing the dynamics 

of serious crashes have intensified. Combined with the 10 year trend in increased pedestrian fatalities the result is an overall more challenging environment for reduction in both targeted severe outcomes.

The shift in crash severity toward more fatalities while suspected serious injuries remain relatively stable or decrease is difficult to explain on the basis of employment rate alone which remained strong until the onset of the Covid 19 

pandemic. Factors such as increased average operational speeds may be an area where efforts to modify driver behavior may have some beneficial effects. While recent decreases in serious injuries are encouraging, INDOT seeks to 

influence a similar downward trend in fatalities by increasing the number and variety of systemic safety programs applicable to both state and local roads.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 70 of 75

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: 2017 To: 2021

When does the State anticipate completing it’s next SHSP update?

 2022

The Covid pandemic has caused some delays in completing crash data trend analysis and stakeholder outreach activities to support the Strategid Highway Safety Plan plan revision, however it is anticipated to be completed by the first 

quarter of calendar year 2022.

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 20

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 71 of 75

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

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 20

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 50

AADT Year (80) [82] 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 72 of 75

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

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [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 (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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.

INDOT currently has the data to support the data elements for Intersections of Non-Local Paved Roads. The Road Inventory Group has acquired spatial analysis software that will help it meet the MIRE FDE required intersection data 

elements by automating management of Intersection Geometries. Also, an investigation will look into the creation of the data element Junction Traffic Control using the INDOT Work Management System once it has been integrated with 

the ESRI Roads and Highways software.

INDOT has data to support the inventory data elements for Interchanges\Ramps on Non-Local Paved Roads. Inventory elements will also use spatial analysis software tools for managing intersections with ramps. The data requirements 

to support the elements Functional Class and Type of Government Ownership will also be supported by the geospatial software. If there is a need for additional data that cannot be extracted using those tools, new geographic processing 

procedures will be created by INDOT to meet the requirements.
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 73 of 75

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 was created through Indiana House Bill 1002 that 

allocates funding to be utilized by Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) to create and maintain road data for Local Government Agencies. The Road Inventory Group is actively working to reach full coverage of Surface Type on 

Local Roads. At present this work is approximately 30% complete, anticipate completion by mid-year 2022.

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 from local agencies is incorporated, as described above, unpaved roads will be identified in the inventory system.

An official representative with authority to manage all MIRE FDE requirements has not yet been determined, however INDOT has created a Data Governance Committee that will establish the necessary data management lines of 

authority.
Page 74 of 75

2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Optional Attachments 

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

SPR-4300 Final Report.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 75 of 75

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.